Shouldn't Redcloak's alignment be good? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Porthos

2009-09-16, 02:08 AM

Generally speaking, people whose plan knowingly involves a risk of dissolving the world into Cosmic Nothingness aren't usually described as being on the shallow end of the alignment pool.

Again, generally speaking.

And if I absoultely have to take a thread like this seriously...

Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) (except his intentions aren't quite as pure as he claims)

Also, and I'm sure it's a trope but I can't think of it right now (and no, Im not thinking of Affably Evil) I suppose the concept of the Anti Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain) might work for Redcloak. After all, Evil Does Not Necessarily Equal Mustache Twirling Cliche. A person can have sympathetic causes, not act like a complete jerk, and in fact have a twisted sense of honor. They can be all those things and still be evil.

That too, is one of the points of this comic. :smallwink:

======

Lets not forget that Redcloak has done quite a few things that are pretty despicable in the life of the comic. Which was the whole point of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) where he realized that he was acting too much like Xykon for his own comfort. Whether this causes him to stop being evil is still to be determined.

In fact, one might say that he's realized that one shouldn't be Cartoony Evil, but should be Smart Evil instead.

Or maybe he will slowly gain a conscience. Anything's possible. But as long as he ascribes to the By Any Means Necessary philosophy when it comes to controlling the Gates, he's going to stay on the evil side of the street.

A tragedy, really. In the Greek sense of the word. Hopefully he can overcome his own inner demons at one point. Of all the people on Team Evil, he by far is the only one that I think is capable of "redemption". I just don't know how likely it is.

Jaxon

2009-09-16, 02:53 AM

Turkish Delight

2009-09-16, 03:13 AM

He's basically like a fantasy Communist, as that Che Guevara rip-off T-shirt suggests. He's standing up over a perfectly valid issue (an unjustly oppressed group who have been stripped of power and treated poorly by the powers-that-be) and in the name of that valid issue doing a whole variety of horrifically evil things, hoping the end result will justify all of what was done; building a 'better world' on the bodies of slaughtered innocents, and very possibly risking the annihilation of everything and everyone in the material world. That's certainly not as bad as Xykon, who commits horrifically evil acts in the name of boredom, but good aligned it ain't.

David Argall

2009-09-16, 03:22 AM

Let's see. Redcloak has imposed slavery, is willing to risk destroying the world, tortures O-Chul for effectively no reason, has got his picture and statue all over the city, and is entirely willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan.

Evil seems an easy conclusion.

Lissou

2009-09-16, 03:30 AM

Turkish Delight

2009-09-16, 03:41 AM

Wait, you can't be Good if you have statues and pictures of you everywhere? That's new.

It usually implies some kind of tyrannical government if your city is littered with images of yourself. It isn't 100% foolproof, of course, but any ruler who dedicates a portion of the city budget to building statues all over the place showing the subjects how great he is probably leans into either Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral territory.

Jaxon

2009-09-16, 03:56 AM

Turkish:
"building a 'better world' on the bodies of slaughtered innocents"
Thats exactly what many good aligned humans do except that those slaughtered are goblins rather than human. Why are they good but redcloak is evil?

David:
"Redcloak has imposed slavery"
Ok fair enough. But only humans, I would think that from his point of view this seems fair

"is willing to risk destroying the world"
Well he hasn't got a lot of options. But if he thinks he has a good enough chance of success and that the chance of failure is sufficiently remote, I don't think that really qualifies as evil. But again: fair point.

"tortures O-Chul for effectively no reason"
I thought he was doing it to find out about the gate. Can you post a link that shows this please?

"has got his picture and statue all over the city"
So he's egotistical. Not necessarily evil.

"willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan."
Exactly: for the sake of his plan. For the greater good. Sometimes you gotta do some distasteful things to achieve your aims.

Jan Mattys

2009-09-16, 04:12 AM

David:
"Redcloak has imposed slavery"
Ok fair enough. But only humans, I would think that from his point of view this seems fair

Remember that Evil and Good are not subjective in D&D, but objective. Slavery is Evil. Nuff said.

"is willing to risk destroying the world"
Well he hasn't got a lot of options. But if he thinks he has a good enough chance of success and that the chance of failure is sufficiently remote, I don't think that really qualifies as evil. But again: fair point.

You didn't read Start of Darkness, did you? Long story short:Redcloak had MANY opportunities to forget the plan, but every time he chose to go one step further instead. Also, he decided not to stop the Plan not because he's faithful to the Dark One, but because he's a coward who can't admit mistakes. That's the whole point in Start of Darkness and that's the reason why those who have read the book very rarely share the same empathy on Redcloak others have.

"willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan."
Exactly: for the sake of his plan. For the greater good. Sometimes you gotta do some distasteful things to achieve your aims.

Again, no. Redcloak tolerates Xykon because he's a coward, unwilling to face his responsabilities and his mistakes. So he keeps telling himself he has no other choice. The "for the greater good" thing, while maybe true in the beginning, has now become a total lie he keeps telling himself.

petersohn

2009-09-16, 04:14 AM

Turkish:
"building a 'better world' on the bodies of slaughtered innocents"
Thats exactly what many good aligned humans do except that those slaughtered are goblins rather than human. Why are they good but redcloak is evil?
That's a valid point.

"tortures O-Chul for effectively no reason"
I thought he was doing it to find out about the gate. Can you post a link that shows this please?
In my point of view, torturing someone is evil, whatever reason you have. I don't know how it goes in OOTSverse though.

"has got his picture and statue all over the city"
So he's egotistical. Not necessarily evil.
He may be a dictator, but not necessarily egoistical. Compare with Nale.

"willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan."
Exactly: for the sake of his plan. For the greater good. Sometimes you gotta do some distasteful things to achieve your aims.
So, you think that "ends justify the means" is a sign of good alignment? Neutral, maybe, but not good. But I still say he is evil, leaning towards neutral.

Thanatosia

2009-09-16, 04:14 AM

Read Start of Darkness. The background material of Xykon is mildly interesting but ultimately rather insignificant. The background material on Redcloak explains a lot and realy puts his character in perspective. And yes, Redcloak is very much evil. One thing SoD tries to explain is that one of the root difinitions of Evil is how far you are willing to go to avoid admiting you were wrong.... and Redcloak goes very, very far indeed (not to be confused with Xykons speach about how far one goes to avoid admiting weakness, that was just establishing their position relative to each other).

Lissou

2009-09-16, 04:23 AM

It usually implies some kind of tyrannical government if your city is littered with images of yourself. It isn't 100% foolproof, of course, but any ruler who dedicates a portion of the city budget to building statues all over the place showing the subjects how great he is probably leans into either Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral territory.

I kinda disagree with that. I think it shows you're megalomaniac, but you can be Good and megalomaniac, or Evil and hate yourself. I don't feel it has much to do with alignment.
Plus the way David Argall said it read like if you have statues of you, you're Evil, whether you're the one who asked people to build them or not.
I'm sure lots of heroes have statues built of them.

Anyway, I do think the statue thing is a bit out of character for what we previously knew of Redcloak. He never seemed the type to really care about people's opinion of him. So I never thought that he might be the one to order the portraits and statues, I assume it was a way the hobgoblins found to use the slaves while honouring their "supreme leader".
Or maybe it's a tradition thing, I guess.

MickJay

2009-09-16, 04:34 AM

While slavery may be evil in D&D world, it's still better to enslave than to slaughter others wholesale. A slave can have a good and happy life, and there's always a possibility of being granted freedom, or at least of escape (not that the slaves in Azure City are in a particularly good position - but at least they're not dead).

Turkish Delight

2009-09-16, 04:35 AM

Turkish:
"building a 'better world' on the bodies of slaughtered innocents"
Thats exactly what many good aligned humans do except that those slaughtered are goblins rather than human. Why are they good but redcloak is evil?

They aren't, in my view. If I were the DM in this case, I would rule slaughtering nonthreatening goblin civilians like women and children as an evil act.

In the OotS world, this seems to be a bit more troublesome, given the Paladin incident in SoD, suggesting 'Good' and 'Evil' may be simply two sides with less interest in the actual morality of the case. But if we view morality beyond the opinions of the 'Good' Gods, then massacring innocents to build a better world should rightfully always drop you into either Neutral or Evil territory, depending on the severity and necessity of it.

Jaxon

2009-09-16, 04:44 AM

You're right. No I have not read Start of Darkness, I have been unable to find it despite my sincerest efforts. Where can I find it. Can it be found online or do I have to go out and buy it?

The Recreator

2009-09-16, 05:03 AM

Right here (http://apegames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=OOTS03&Category_Code=) - straight from the source.

And in regards to the whole "Statues = Evil" thing, it's one thing to receive statues to honor you and another to demand that they be built. The former suggests you have performed deeds that inspire the population to celebrate you, while the latter implies a certain vanity and self-centeredness that most often falls into the category of the Evil alignments.

Jan Mattys

2009-09-16, 05:21 AM

You're right. No I have not read Start of Darkness, I have been unable to find it despite my sincerest efforts. Where can I find it. Can it be found online or do I have to go out and buy it?

Do yourself a favour and buy it. It's really a masterpiece, even compared to OOTS's usual very high standards.

To be honest both prequel books are awesome; Origin of PCs is funny and I loved it, but Start of Darkness totally rocks.

Nimrod's Son

2009-09-16, 05:38 AM

Major SoD spoilers:

Recloak's brother Right-Eye, with whom Redcloak recruited Xykon in the first place, lost his entire family due to Xykon's maliciousness. This was the last straw for Right-Eye, who had long been protesting that getting involved with Xykon was a mistake. He realised that Xykon was never going to satisfactorily help them achieve their goals, and also knew that destroying Xykon was the only way to sever their association with him.

Deep down Recloak agreed, but if he let Right-Eye destroy Xykon then he'd have to admit that he was wrong to have formed their partnership, and face up to the fact that all the goblins that died under Xykon's leadership had done so in vain. Rather than accept this and try to make amends from scratch, he killed his own brother so that Xykon could live. Or, y'know, carry on existing, whatever.
Doesn't sound so "good" now, does he?

pjackson

2009-09-16, 06:23 AM

How many paladins crusade to destroy goblins?

In the OOTS world - none that we know of.
The only crusade of paladins described was by the Azure Order against threats to the gates.
Though since they were also hiding the knowledge of the gates it is understandable that they would be thought to be crusading against goblins, given that the wearer of the crimson mantle was the biggest threat.

Jagos

2009-09-16, 07:15 AM

In the OOTS world - none that we know of.
The only crusade of paladins described was by the Azure Order against threats to the gates.
Though since they were also hiding the knowledge of the gates it is understandable that they would be thought to be crusading against goblins, given that the wearer of the crimson mantle was the biggest threat.

It's assumed that the Azure SG goes out on raids quite frequently to avoid the Dark One's Red Cloaked High Priest from having power to mess with the gates. As well, ANY information about the gates is wiped out. Also, the Guard still went into enemy territory to eradicate any information on the gate by any means necessary. That says a lot about their tactics of espionage.

Tempest Fennac

2009-09-16, 07:30 AM

Regarding the statue and pictures, there is a chance that the Hobgoblins put them up without being told to (RC doesn't seem like he'd be that bothered about having statues and banners of his image put up due to being more concerned with other things. As far as torturing O-Chul went, his main aim after "get Gate information" appeared to be to delay leaving so he could help to set up Azure City as a Goblin homeland.

SoD spoiler.
While I agree that RC has issues with admitting errors, I don't see how he could have walked away from the plan at any point in the book, apart from near the very end, but as he said to RE, they were, at least based on what he knew, incredibly close to fulfilling the plan so walking away from it would have been a waste, especially since, without Xykon, Durokan may have slaughtered all of the Goblins because of what they knew about the plan.

In regards to the plan, I don't class it as evil based on how the gods could have easily eliminated the need for it by not creating races to be slaughtered for Exps. in the first place. They don't appear to be overly concerned with the threat Xykon and RC pose to the world either. (I'm assuming RC's story is true until I see evidence that suggests it can't be trusted).

Xesirin

2009-09-16, 08:02 AM

I'm willing to buy that Redcloak might qualify for neutral on the grounds that everything he's doing is in the name of good. That said, however, having read SoD, the reasons Redcloak is still entrenched on the team of evil are for far less noble purposes than when he started out. He's on the line between what would allow a redemption and where he is no longer capable of good.

Lawful/Evil with a heavy lean towards Lawful/Neutral.

Shale

2009-09-16, 08:05 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html

So, yeah. Not exactly "respect for the dignity of sentient beings." He eventually grows out of this with regards to hobgoblins and hobgoblins only, which isn't enough to change his alignment, IMO.

t_catt11

2009-09-16, 08:23 AM

Shouldn't Redcloak be good?

My kneejerk reaction to this was "Is Jaxon out of his mind? Of course not!". However, you make some good points - there is at least an argument to be made.

However, in the end, the fact that he has joined forces with a monster that is bent on destroying the world... well, that pretty much trumps any other argument to me.

Ain't it great to have a stick figure webcomic with this much depth?

Mugen Nightgale

2009-09-16, 08:27 AM

Is O-Chul's attack on Redcloak morally justified? .....

Sorry, I had to go there.

Glass Mouse

2009-09-16, 09:05 AM

Turkish Delight

2009-09-16, 09:17 AM

Uhhh... Afterlife, anyone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html)?

Really, I'd think the existence of an afterlife would muck up the entire moral system of the world tremendously. Mass execution of Lawful Good people might almost be seen as an act of kindness. At the very worst, it's a little rude, like kicking someone off a carnival ride before they're through with it. At no point could it really be considered all that terrible, since they know they'll have a fantastic time and will eventually get to see their still-living Good relatives.

Ave

2009-09-16, 09:35 AM

Really, I'd think the existence of an afterlife would muck up the entire moral system of the world tremendously. Mass execution of Lawful Good people might almost be seen as an act of kindness. At the very worst, it's a little rude, like kicking someone off a carnival ride before they're through with it. At no point could it really be considered all that terrible, since they know they'll have a fantastic time and will eventually get to see their still-living Good relatives.

Killing evil people sounds like nasty then (though they might deserve it).
What truly EVIL is killing children who are faithless yet.
Those would end up in the Wall of Faithless.

Turkish Delight

2009-09-16, 10:02 AM

Killing evil people sounds like nasty then (though they might deserve it).
What truly EVIL is killing children who are faithless yet.
Those would end up in the Wall of Faithless.

I don't know if the OotS world has the Wall of the Faithless. It seems doubtful, since Roy's brother ended up going to Mount Celestia, despite being apparently so young as to not comprehend where he was or why. I think it may just be a Forgotten Realms thing, but then since I only know about it through Neverwinter Nights 2, I can't really say.

If it does exist, then I will still exercise some restraint and hold back on a long, angry rant on the subject.

t_catt11

2009-09-16, 11:01 AM

I can't see a Wall of the Faithless here - Roy's brother pretty much rules this out.

edit: ninja'd!

Trobby

2009-09-16, 11:23 AM

Porthos

2009-09-16, 12:01 PM

"is willing to risk destroying the world"
Well he hasn't got a lot of options. But if he thinks he has a good enough chance of success and that the chance of failure is sufficiently remote, I don't think that really qualifies as evil. But again: fair point.

"hasn't got a lot of options"???

According to whom? :smallconfused:

If you mean that "he doesn't have a lot of options" to impose a dictatorial goblin-led regime upon the entire planet at least a good portion of the planet in one fell swoop, then, yes you are right. He doesn't have a lot of options.'

However, if you are saying that he simply wants to make a better life for goblinkind, then he actually does have a few options. And option number one would be to toss a Sphere of Annihilation (or whatever would sufficently kill him) at his partner Xykon.

In fact, Redcloak might want to take a page from his own brother. I won't go into details here about Right-Eye save to say that he actually did something about making a better life for goblinkind without actually going down the road Redcloak did.

===

Other Points:

Slavery is evil in OotSWorld, per Rich.
And I would presume torture is as well.

Just look at the society that Redcloak created when he conquered Azure City. Now tell me how is that anything but evil?

Finally, outside of self-serving goblin propaganda we have no idea if the gods really created monster races to be XP fodder or not. And we have no idea if Paladins routinely go around slaughtering all goblins they see. We do have incontrovertible evidence that they slaughter villages that have the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle in it. But might just be because they are a wee bit cranky about letting someone walk around who has the possibility to (at least as far as they know) destroy the souls of every living being.

And I might also point out that Redcloak doesn't seem (outwardly at least) too concerned about that possibility. As far as he is concerned, if Goblins get a better break in World 3.0 then it doesn't matter if each and every soul in World 2.0 is devoured and utterly destroyed.

There's a word for that. And it ain't "good". :smallwink:

Herald Alberich

2009-09-16, 12:03 PM

Some of this has been touched on, but I'd like to have a go at it. I haven't read Start of Darkness, but know of salient plot points because of the boards. I'll spoiler-text anything that I think came from SoD; my apologies if I miss something.

David:
"Redcloak has imposed slavery"
Ok fair enough. But only humans, I would think that from his point of view this seems fair

Indeed, but that doesn't make it good. Only the paladins of the Sapphire Guard who actually killed innocent goblins (as Turkish said, not at all a Good act, unless, it seems, you're one of the Twelve Gods) are deserving of hate from Redcloak, but he hates all humans equally (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html), and he's ok with that. Not Good. He also is just fine with unmaking their souls (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) (negating the Good afterlife bit) for Science to extort O-Chul.

"is willing to risk destroying the world"
Well he hasn't got a lot of options. But if he thinks he has a good enough chance of success and that the chance of failure is sufficiently remote, I don't think that really qualifies as evil. But again: fair point.

He actually considers the chances of failure to be quite high (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html). He's ok with that, because if the world is destroyed, The Dark One will make sure goblins have a fair deal when the gods rebuild it. Again, he's perfectly willing to risk a good chance of complete nonexistence for every soul on the planet so that the goblins won't get killed so much. That's too excessive to not be Evil.

Edit: As Porthos said, he does have other options. He's trying one of them with the Azure City-as-goblin-nation idea. He could have raised an army and done that without getting involved in the Gates and risking the world's destruction. Conquering a decent piece of land for your people might include some Evil, but nothing nearly on the level as what Redcloak is actually doing.

"tortures O-Chul for effectively no reason"
I thought he was doing it to find out about the gate. Can you post a link that shows this please?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

Redcloak's secondary, and eventually primary, reason for torturing O-Chul (not Good, no matter why he does it) is to delay Xykon from leaving Azure City while the hobgoblins build it into an effective stronghold. That's not "effectively no reason", but it's also not justified.

"has got his picture and statue all over the city"
So he's egotistical. Not necessarily evil.

Yeah, that's not really evidence for Evilness. Redcloak doesn't strike me as the type to have his subjects waste time sculpting when they could be, again, cementing control over Azure City. That means they build those for him on their own, which in turn means they think of him highly. That is a point in his favor.

"willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan."
Exactly: for the sake of his plan. For the greater good. Sometimes you gotta do some distasteful things to achieve your aims.

Redcloak's plan ≠ the greater good. It aims for more fair treatment of the goblinoid races, at the expense (up to and including eternal destruction) of everyone else on the planet. When you live in a world with multiple sapient races, you really need to consider all of them if you aim for "the greater good".

Besides, Xykon's murders, by and large, are because he likes killing, not because it would help the plan. As long as Redcloak needs Xykon's help, there's not much he can do about it, but that doesn't make condoning it Good.

Dixieboy

2009-09-16, 12:08 PM

I kinda disagree with that. I think it shows you're megalomaniac, but you can be Good and megalomaniac, or Evil and hate yourself. I don't feel it has much to do with alignment.
Plus the way David Argall said it read like if you have statues of you, you're Evil, whether you're the one who asked people to build them or not.
I'm sure lots of heroes have statues built of them.

Give me one good guy with slaves who had statues built of himself.

Just ONE.

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 12:10 PM

Okay, I'm sorry if this comes out sounding unsympathetic or even "species-ist", but it has to be said.

Under the D&D system, "Good" is relevant to what is good for human life. Period. Goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, and every other creature that actively seeks to harm human life is, therefore, considered "evil", because of his complete disregard for human life. Specifically (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) human life.

I don't think that follows, especially under D&D rules. Humans are Any Alignment, not Good.
There are a number of races that are basically good to a far greater extent than humans, and the moment you introduce them into the mix "Human=Good" takes a huge blow.
It might be good for humans if they invaded dwarven territory and took over their mines and started chopping down elven forests for cattle pastures, but that wouldn't be Good at all, and the dwarves and elves wouldn't be Evil for opposing them.
The reasons races are labeled evil is because of a general tendency towards destructiveness, not because their actions are inconvenient for humans.

Recloak qualifies as evil because his plan creates a terrible risk to the world and because many of his means are immoral, such as enabling Xykon and torturing his enemies.
Striving to create a better world for goblinoids isn't evil, even if it's done by fighting back against the humans. Humans have shown no regard for goblinoid life themselves.
The only thing to change their moral footing is the methods used in the struggle, unless you use a "my species, right or wrong" mentality to explain that they're always better.

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 12:13 PM

Give me one good guy with slaves who had statues built of himself.

Just ONE.

Well are you claiming that every single wealthy man in Rome was evil? They had slaves and a great fondness for statues (well mostly busts, but lets not split hairs).

Porthos

2009-09-16, 12:21 PM

He could have raised an army and done that without getting involved in the Gates and risking the world's destruction. Conquering a decent piece of land for your people might include some Evil, but nothing nearly on the level as what Redcloak is actually doing.

That's an interesting point that usually isn't brought up in these Poor Misunderstood Redcloak threads. Kudos for that. :smallsmile:

If Redcloak was just your bog-standard Empire Maker, I agree that I don't think it would be as big of a deal. Now it might say a lot about Redcloak when it comes to how he treats his new subjects.

Sadly the early returns aren't favorable if we use Azure City as a guide. :smallsmile:

(now back to one of Jaxon's points I missed earlier)
As for Using Xykon as a weapon for Greater Good... Ugh.

Actually let's step back for a moment and compare and contrast. Specifically Xykon and Belkar. Both are evil through and through. And both are being claimed to be used for the Greater Good.

Well, let's go to the scorecard.

While if control is ever slipped on Belkar, he can do some pretty horrific things, they are usually Small Time in nature. And, at least according to one chart, his evil has been lessened to a great degree.

However in the case of Xykon, not only has he committed evil of far greater magnitude, he actually wrestled control of (nearly) the entire operation from Redcloak. To put it bluntly, for a long time Xykon was in charge, not Redcloak. And while Redcloak is starting to grow a bit of a spine by trying to pull fast ones over his partner, recent developments show that Xykon is still the dominate force in their relationship. Whether this remains the case will go a long way as to what happens with Redcloak when all is said and done.

Think of what the Order would be like if Belkar was in charge of everything. Then think how different they would be. That's the difference between using evil for a greater good effectively and not. And, in fact, on a much lesser scale, it's a lesson that Haley learned herself when she found she couldn't control Belkar. It should be very interesting to see if Roy can control the New Self-Enlightened Belkar and what he will do if he can't.

Silverraptor

2009-09-16, 12:29 PM

Alright. Good means you raise the Goblin status through your own means, not bring down and blackmail other forces with a world killing abomonation. That is the key difference right here.

Shale

2009-09-16, 12:30 PM

Both Roy and Redcloak are using CE allies for their own benefit by allowing them to fulfill their own goals in a way that helps Roy/Red's. The difference is that Belkar's ultimate aims are to keep living, get lots of material wealth and comfort, and kill things. None of those are necessarily evil goals, if the wealth and women are lawfully gained and the foes killed are Evil. It doesn't always work out that way, but Roy does significantly lessen the damage Belkar would otherwise do. Xykon's goal is to rule the world and slaughter innocents. That's a bit more severe and a lot less mitigateable.

Berserk Monk

2009-09-16, 12:34 PM

Porthos

2009-09-16, 12:47 PM

There's something else we could be looking at here, if we wanted to.

While it is NOT a universally held opinion by any means, some people think that one of the ideas that seperates Good from Evil is: Matter of Degree and Matter of Convenience

That is Good will be willing to curtail some rights if it really will help the situation. But Evil will strip away far more rights, and far sooner.

Good will be willing to see a few people die if it really will further its goals, but it should still be reluctant to do so. But Evil will willinngly kill lots of people to further its goals, and will do so with far less reluctance.

It's the difference between Murder and Jaywalking, as a famous wiki once put it. :smallwink:

Now where is the line between those two ideas? Well that's where the philsophers come in. However, I would say that the Greatest Lie Evil Ever Told is not that the Devil Doesn't Exist. IMO, the Greatest Lie Evil Ever Told is this: That it is exactly the same as Good. Only more effective.

That lie has caused more damage in the history of the world than a lot of things that I can think of.

The Extinguisher

2009-09-16, 12:53 PM

Redcloak is far to gone now to ever be redeemed. He is evil. Despite all his claims that goblins got the short end of the stick, his only idea to fix this is to build up a massive army and threaten everyone into giving him what he wants (this is, incidentally also the only thing the Dark One could come up with). He is living proof for the reason the Sapphire Guard needed to kill every last goblin in the village. Yes, yes, it's a big circle of fault between the goblins and the sapphire guard, the the paladins have the distinction of not wanting the blow up creation (or possibly blowing it up)

I honestly think that even if Redcloak were to kill Xykon, abandon the plan spend the rest of his life helping little old ladies cross the street, he'd never be anything more than neutral.

Kish

2009-09-16, 12:59 PM

Redcloak[...]is living proof for the reason the Sapphire Guard needed to kill every last goblin in the village.

And his brother, all the other goblins who didn't become Redcloak, all the non-goblins who grew up to be as bad or worse than Redcloak (Xykon, for the hardest one to debate, though the comic certainly provides others...) conveniently cease to exist whenever someone who missed the point of that scene at the beginning of Start of Darkness wants to argue that the paladins weren't doing anything wrong and that a line of thought which starts with "the paladins were right to wipe out the village" doesn't logically lead to, "and would be right to wipe out all life."

MReav

2009-09-16, 01:01 PM

Porthos

2009-09-16, 01:05 PM

And his brother conveniently ceases to exist whenever someone who missed the point of that scene at the beginning of Start of Darkness wants to argue that the paladins weren't doing anything wrong.

The cycle of violence isn't a pretty one, unfortunately. It takes enough people on both sides to want to break it. Otherwise, sooner or later, someone on the other side starts it back up all over again.

<ed:> After all, there are now plenty of people within Azure City who now hate goblinkind and, if they have the opportunity, will do something about it.

Don't think there is a 15 year old Azurite who saw his mother killed before his eyes during the battle? Think again. :smallamused:
</:ed>

Rich himself hinted at this in one of the commentaries about the Goblin/Azure City war. We don't know who started the conflict between the two sides. All we do know is that there are plenty of people willing to continue it.

EDIT:::

It's also fair to point out that Right-Eye changed his viewpoint (and arguably alignment) over the course of SoD while Redcloak didn't. He realized that what he was doing was wrong and wouldn't solve anything, and changed plans accordingly. Which is heavily ironic since it's his fault that Xykon is even hooked up with Redcloak in the first place.

That too is forgotten by a lot of the debaters of this subject. :smallwink:

MReav

2009-09-16, 01:28 PM

It's also fair to point out that Right-Eye changed his viewpoint (and arguably alignment) over the course of SoD while Redcloak didn't. He realized that what he was doing was wrong and wouldn't solve anything, and changed plans accordingly. Which is heavily ironic since it's his fault that Xykon is even hooked up with Redcloak in the first place.

That too is forgotten by a lot of the debaters of this subject. :smallwink:

That is never forgotten, nor is it ironic. Right-Eye flat out acknowledged that that he made a mistake, the acknowledgement of that mistake was a major reason why he changed, and that he died trying to finally fix that mistake.

Coplantor

2009-09-16, 01:28 PM

Well are you claiming that every single wealthy man in Rome was evil? They had slaves and a great fondness for statues (well mostly busts, but lets not split hairs).

Really? Rome? That's your example of good society? I mean, I love Rome, it's history, everything, heck, it was thanks to Julius Caesar that I had the "Conquer the World" stage when I was 8, but Rome is nothing near a good society.

multilis

2009-09-16, 01:54 PM

The merciful goblins keep the evil humans alive rather than slaughter them. If tables were turned, the humans would simply slaughter the goblins.

Don't knock the poor goblins for making the bloodthirsty humans into slaves, they *have* to keep them under control, the savage humans are world famous as supporting the great goblin butchering city.

Statues of Redcloak are done spontaneously by the human slaves and goblin teachers due to the love they feel for Saint Redcloak and his mercy in letting them live, and providing food and shelter for them.

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 01:57 PM

Really? Rome? That's your example of good society? I mean, I love Rome, it's history, everything, heck, it was thanks to Julius Caesar that I had the "Conquer the World" stage when I was 8, but Rome is nothing near a good society.

I'm not saying it was a good society. I simply doubt that every single man in Rome of high enough standing to own slaves and have statues commissioned was evil.

I also think that the hobgoblins probably made the statue of their own volition. Not much evidence, but Redcloak doesn't really seem like the egotistical conspicuous spending type who'd order a statue saying "Our Leader" on it made.

Tass

2009-09-16, 02:22 PM

Then how about Right-eye? Was he genuinely good towards the end of his life?

In the beginning?

I think the twelve gods would call him evil at first and at most neutral en the end, only for his willingness to kill Xykon.

I agree that Redcloak has done a lot of bad things and would probably be evil even if he was on the right team, but Miko would definitely not have been called good for long either if she had happened to be a goblin. The system is unfair.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 02:28 PM

The system is unfair.

No, and despite what Goblin Propaganda would tell you, it really isn't.

But I tire of Moral Relativism arguments even in the best of times. So if you want to think there was no difference between Miko Miyazaki and Random J. Goblin, more power to you. :smallsmile:

BTW: The reason many people, including myself, think that Right-Eye stopped being evil was:

That he stopped thirsting after petty revenge. And that he actually set up a small village where goblins could live thier lives without bothering other people. You know, the whole idea of "create, not destroy"?

In that respect, Right-Eye has done faaaar more for the goblin people than Redcloak ever did. :smallsmile:

spargel

2009-09-16, 02:30 PM

Redcloak might be considered good to goblins, and evil to every other race.

Haven

2009-09-16, 02:35 PM

According to Xykon in SoD:

Only two things matter: power and how far you're willing to debase yourself to get it. In any battle, there's always a level of raw power no tactic can overcome. And as for getting said power, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Xykon ripped off his own flesh and casted off his humanity to acquire it. That's the difference between him and Red Cloak. The latter is evil for good's sake and the other is just evil for evil.

Xykon was full of boop in that scene (er, figuratively):

That's just a retroactive justification; when he found out that he had actually lost something in doing so he was pissed and it seemed like he wouldn't have done it. To me he's not a badass, he's just a coward or a powerful bully, and I look forward to the day when he's called out on it. In fact, I expect Roy to, somehow, make a pre-mortem one-liner about coffee before killing Xykon once and for all.

ocdscale

2009-09-16, 02:36 PM

I'm not saying it was a good society. I simply doubt that every single man in Rome of high enough standing to own slaves and have statues commissioned was evil.

Hmm? Suppose I tell you that my neighbor recently bought a half a dozen men and women on the human trafficking market to be his slaves.
I don't tell you any more.

You don't believe you have the basis of making a judgment call on his alignment right then and there?

Porthos

2009-09-16, 02:41 PM

You don't believe you have the basis of making a judgment call on his alignment right then and there?

Cue the obligitaroy "it wasn't evil then, but it is now" argument from some quarters in three... two... one... :smallwink:

====

More seriously one would probably say that good people are capable of evil acts. One has to look at the totality of a person before one should truly judge a person.

Of course this is why alignment fails as a concept in Real Life. At least as far as I am concerned. People are far too complex, generally speaking, to be described by such a simplistic notion as an Alignment System.

But it does make for a handy mechanic for a game. :smallwink:

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 03:07 PM

Hmm? Suppose I tell you that my neighbor recently bought a half a dozen men and women on the human trafficking market to be his slaves.
I don't tell you any more.

You don't believe you have the basis of making a judgment call on his alignment right then and there?

Yes, well then we get into long, tiresome, not forum legal discussions about the flexibility of moral values in different times and cultures. I will say that if you said that in ancient Rome, people would go "Okay then. What was your point?"

Edit: Zero

ChowGuy

2009-09-16, 04:51 PM

Really? Rome? That's your example of good society?Would you accept George Washington?

Lamech

2009-09-16, 05:22 PM

First off in DnD alignment good is protecting "innocent life". And evil is doing bad stuff too "innocent life". Every person I have met also assumes life means intelligent creatures or intelligent life.

No, and despite what Goblin Propaganda would tell you, it really isn't.

The hell it isn't. We see paladins slaughtering goblin childern, but not falling for it. You know how in DnD destroying life is always "evil" unless they have somehow lost the catagory of "innocent". Unless every single person in that village commited a offense worthy enough to make them free game for killing? Then yes the system is unfair. Somehow I find that really, really unlikely unless each goblin had killed someone. Also do you really think that a goblin can walk into a town and get a job, the same way any other human could? If they can't then yes it is unfair.

Again, he's perfectly willing to risk a good chance of complete nonexistence for every soul on the planet so that the goblins won't get killed so much. That's too excessive to not be Evil.And... O-Chul does the same when goblin is replaced with human. Well to be fair, kill was replaced with enslaved. Which means Redcloak hasn't quite fallen to the level of O-Chul. Also I would like to point out Redcloak's plan will only destroy the world if the ritual doesn't work and does something crazy. We have no reason to assume this is more dangerous than starting up a new more powerful particle collider. Right-eye asked a hypothetical, and he is not the expert.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 05:58 PM

We see paladins slaughtering goblin childern, but not falling for it.

You've obviously never heard of the age-old Orc Baby conundrum. :smallwink: Ain't going to repeat it here (the debate goes back to at least first edition, if not much much further), simply because that's asking for a 100+ page flamewar.

So I'm going to have to give the righteous indignation here a pass, I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

It's been argued time and time again and I sure as heck ain't going to settle it here.

And... O-Chul does the same when goblin is replaced with human. Well to be fair, kill was replaced with enslaved. Which means Redcloak hasn't quite fallen to the level of O-Chul.

OK, I have zero idea what you are talking about here. I'm going to take a risk and ask if you could elaborate a bit. :smallsmile:

We have no reason to assume this is more dangerous than starting up a new more powerful particle collider. Right-eye asked a hypothetical, and he is not the expert.

Errr... If you really believe that, given that the chances of a partical collider destroying the world are roughly ZERO, I have a bridge to sell you in the middle of a desert. :smallwink:

<snarky comment, perhaps unworhty of me, but what the hey>
BTW: It's going to really suck, when the "bad guys" win in this comic when all said and done, isn't it. :smalltongue:
</snarky comment, perhaps unworhty of me, but what the hey>

jidasfire

2009-09-16, 06:24 PM

I think the reason so many of these threads get started is because a lot of people think evil is restricted to maniacs who laugh as they dance in baby's blood for no reason. The fact is, most people who qualify as evil have a point of view, and many of them have been so savagely hurt by the world around them that one can understand why they'd end up that way.

These things do not excuse bad behavior, and certainly don't make someone good.

Most bad people will tell you that what they're doing is fully justified, and that you are the evil one for standing in their way. Some may genuinely believe it, others may lie to themselves, and some may be flat out lying, but just because someone has a point of view, even if that point of view may have some nobility to it, does not make a person good. Goodness is in one's actions, not one's beliefs.

So it is with Redcloak. He preaches equality for goblinkind, which is a decent thing to be sure, but how does he go about doing it? Supervillain schemes to threaten the destruction of reality, allying with the monstrous Xykon, murdering his own brother and enslaving an entire city just because they look like people who've hurt his kind. Does this sound like the kind of person who would create a happy little utopia? It's more likely that Redcloak's ideal world would be an absolute tyranny, where anyone, even other goblins, who opposed him would be destroyed.

For all that, I don't defend the actions of the paladins in Start of Darkness. If I were running a game and paladins murdered goblin kids, they'd fall instantly. But the main good protagonists of the story, Roy, Durkon, Elan, and Haley, plus the paladins we've come to know, Hinjo, Lien, and O-Chul, have shown through their actions that they would not engage in this sort of behavior. Roy has even said he won't kill humanoids just because it's easier than talking to them.

Redcloak is an interesting, nuanced character, I'll grant you that. In some ways he is worthy of pity, if not exactly sympathy. But to call him good, and all humans in the story evil, is wildly misreading the text.

Enlong

2009-09-16, 06:39 PM

In Start of Darkness, Redcloak explicitly names The Dark One as Evil. He can't be Good because that would violate his class's alignment restrictions. So, he is Neutral at best, and quite likely Evil.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 07:10 PM

BTW, just because it's such a great quote, I feel I have to share it here. :smallcool:

There is a chance that firebreathing dragons will be produced by the LHC. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/cern.particlephysics1)
- Dr. Michio Kaku, noting that this circumstance has about an equal probability as the Large Hadron Collider destroying the Earth.

He then spoils it by saying:

But the probability of this event is so small, one can show that it will not happen in the lifetime of the universe.
- Dr. Michio Kaku

Somehow I think that Redcloak's Plan is a tad riskier than that. :smalltongue:

B. Dandelion

2009-09-16, 07:16 PM

You've obviously never heard of the age-old Orc Baby conundrum. :smallwink: Ain't going to repeat it here (the debate goes back to at least first edition, if not much much further), simply because that's asking for a 100+ page flamewar.

Or, conversely, maybe he had. Or maybe was even thinking of it specifically. Since despite what you seem to be trying to imply, the existence of that debate in no way backs up your point.

So I'm going to have to give the righteous indignation here a pass, I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

Calling people names while appending a friendly-looking smiley to the end of your sentence is sarcastic on top of being insulting, not uninsulting.

It's been argued time and time again and I sure as heck ain't going to settle it here.

Yeah, because it wasn't settled the first time around. If you want to back out, that's all you're doing -- backing out.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 07:23 PM

the existence of that debate in no way backs up your point.

Actually, believe it or not, I don't have a horse in the Sapphire Guard should have fallen debate. Really, I don't. And I'm not saying that the SG have never done bad things. Indeed I will note that Karma is indeed a You-Know-What.

What does set my teeth on edge is this idea that the Goblins (specifically the ones lead by the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle) and Sapphire Guard are morally equivalent.

As for the rest... Well, I do admit that the post was a tad (i.e. a lot) on the snarky side. So guilty (of that at least) as charged, I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

NOTE: That smiley on the end of this post is entierly genuine and, if anything, self-effacing. :smallwink:

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 07:50 PM

He is living proof for the reason the Sapphire Guard needed to kill every last goblin in the village.

Interesting. Can you replace "goblin" with a given race among the homo sapiens species and repeat it?

Does it work? No? Why doesn't it? Then why do you apply it to Goblins if, and for a reason, it doesn't work for humans?

Prak

2009-09-16, 08:00 PM

Shouldn't Redcloak be good? He doesn't seem to go out of his way to cause suffering hurt people with the exception of humans (particularly the paladins of the saphire guard), but isn't that just because they kill goblins? He shows remorse after ordering hundreds if not thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths. I mean; isn't he basicly the same as any human cleric (well not ANY but you know what i mean) except that he's a goblin?
What do you think?

that's actually rather the point. Redcloak is evil, because of who he worships, who he works with, what he's doing and the orders he gives.

That doesn't stop him from caring about his fellow man goblin.

Trobby

2009-09-16, 08:30 PM

I don't think that follows, especially under D&D rules. Humans are Any Alignment, not Good.
There are a number of races that are basically good to a far greater extent than humans, and the moment you introduce them into the mix "Human=Good" takes a huge blow.

Then it's a good thing I'm not trying to argue that human=good.

Yes, there are evil humans. Murderers, rapists, slave traffickers, and the like. Those who are detrimental to human life. Thus, humans can be both good AND evil, for themselves.

I'm not saying that it's better because of the stance it takes, I'm saying that the alignment system favors creatures who value human values, and criminalizes those that don't.

Bibliomancer

2009-09-16, 08:30 PM

that's actually rather the point. Redcloak is evil, because of who he worships, who he works with, what he's doing and the orders he gives.

That doesn't stop him from caring about his fellow man goblin.

Exactly. Redcloak is attempting to improve the lives of goblins by whatever means necessary, and in DnD the ends don't justify the means, making his actions evil.

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 09:17 PM

Under the D&D system, "Good" is relevant to what is good for human life. Period.

Very well, then I think your above statement is rather poorly phrased.

It is perfectly possible to commit acts that would be considered evil under D&D standards that do not harm humans, e.g. my initial examples.

Certainly, the alignment system is largely derived from modern Western moral standards, but that does not mean that acting good will always be to the benefit of humans.

As I said, I agree that Redcloak is evil. I simply don't think it has anything to do with actions against humans specifically. If he a human employing the same methods against goblins I'd consider him Evil as well.

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 09:46 PM

As I said, I agree that Redcloak is evil. I simply don't think it has anything to do with actions against humans specifically. If he a human employing the same methods against goblins I'd consider him Evil as well.

Such as the LG Paladins going "My Lai" on the goblin village?

Lamech

2009-09-16, 09:49 PM

You've obviously never heard of the age-old Orc Baby conundrum. :smallwink: Ain't going to repeat it here (the debate goes back to at least first edition, if not much much further), simply because that's asking for a 100+ page flamewar.

So I'm going to have to give the righteous indignation here a pass, I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

It's been argued time and time again and I sure as heck ain't going to settle it here.Yeah... there was some righteous indignation. Even if it is in the greater good* to kill innocent goblins, I'm saying that isn't how DnD morality works. If an innocent is a ticking time bomb and will destroy the world in five days if not killed in five minutes. Killing that person would still be an evil act as you are destroying innocent life. More importantly a system that condones killing of a certain races childern? It is unfair; those childern are dying with out any chance at life, even if they have some "abnormal" in born goodness, Xykon OTOH gets to live and endanger the world. The system decides who live and who dies and it has nothing to do with there actions.

OK, I have zero idea what you are talking about here. I'm going to take a risk and ask if you could elaborate a bit. :smallsmile:Destroying the gate? Weakening the Snarl's prision?

Errr... If you really believe that, given that the chances of a partical collider destroying the world are roughly ZERO, I have a bridge to sell you in the middle of a desert. :smallwink:

<snarky comment, perhaps unworhty of me, but what the hey>
Oh yes the chances are very low. We know that. We know that cosmic rays do the same thing to a higher degree all the time. How do we know the Dark One doesn't have something similar to ensure saftey? There is of course, the danger of people like O-Chul, but you know what? He's good.

*it might well be, but I disagree with the "greater good" idea when it comes to endangering lives of unwilling people except in extreme cases. More importantly a debate about such things has been going on since the beginning of humanity, and will not be settled here.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 10:01 PM

Destroying the gate? Weakening the Snarl's prision?

Ah, I hadn't grokked that part of the equation when reading your post. Thanks.

Hmmm. An interesting point. One that I might have to give some thought to. However, on a first blush I think destroying a Gate, knowing that there are at least two left, is preferrable to letting someone actually go through The Plan, which would, even in the best possible light, give control of The Snarl to Redcloak and co. As I think about it, destroying one gate doesn't actually let loose The Snarl (they already have prior evidence of this). At worst, it might have let The Snarl stick an appendage out to try to grab someone going nearby. Pretty horriffic for the people involved, but not on the scale of World Dissolving*.

So I still don't agree with the equivilency.

* NOTE: I know that the whole World Dissolving thing is under serious dispute now thanks to recent strips. I'm just talking about how O'Chul/Redcloak view the situation with their knowledge.

How do we know the Dark One doesn't have something similar to ensure saftey?

Well, now we drift in the the dangerous area of reading tone (not to mention between the lines). With that caveat...

When Right-Eye was grilling Redcloak about The Snarl getting loose, Redcloak didn't exactly go out of his way to suggest that The Snarl escaping was a Low Probability Event. Even a single statement of "But there's almost no chance of that happening" would have helped.

I guess I am saying that Redcloak's "reassurance" to Right-Eye was anything but to me. :smallwink:

Kish

2009-09-16, 10:02 PM

I considered Redcloak quite thoroughly evil as soon as I read Start of Darkness, which was well before he conquered Azure City, not for his attitude toward humans but for his lack of real care for the lives of the people he claimed to be trying to save.

He blasted his brother claiming that he couldn't allow anyone to endanger the lives of the remaining goblins Xykon had enslaved. Where are those goblins now? Oh, right, all dead. Inevitably. Redcloak condemned them to death the second he decided to oppose killing Xykon.

Aldrakan

2009-09-16, 10:06 PM

Such as the LG Paladins going "My Lai" on the goblin village?

I'd certainly consider their actions there Evil, yes, though I'd rather not resurrect the debate so can we just take this as my opinion without shouting about what the Monsters Manual says?

Redcloak loses points for many of his actions being of his own designs rather than being ordered superiors who can be expected to have a very good hold on morality. And the scale and scope of his actions is considerably greater than the paladins.
I find assigning a definitive alignment rather problematic, but I'd call Redcloak evil with good tendencies, while the paladins are good with evil tendencies.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 10:16 PM

I'd rather not resurrect the debate so can we just take this as my opinion without shouting about what the Monsters Manual says?

There is exactly one person who knows why the Paladins didn't Fall because of that little incident.

Sadly he ain't talking. :smallamused:

*grumbles about lack of commentaries in the prequel books*

Enlong

2009-09-16, 10:23 PM

Guys.

The Dark One is an Evil god (Redcloak confirms this).
Clerics can't be more than one alignment step away from their god's alignment. Therefore, Redcloak cannot be good, as that would violate the restrictions on his class.

/debate?

Setra

2009-09-16, 10:27 PM

Porthos

2009-09-16, 10:31 PM

What about Thor being Chaotic and Durkon being Lawful?

That's another whole can of worms. :smallwink:

As you might guess the topic has come up once or twice. :smallbiggrin:

The Extinguisher

2009-09-16, 10:35 PM

Except that it was their indiscriminate slaughter that helped cause their problems in the first place. The Sapphire Guard might have not have created Redcloak if they waited for the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle to leave the town and ambush him then, far away from anyone that could possibly recover it.

And I'm certain that some indescriminate slaughter of humans was what caused them to attack the village.

Look, I'm not saying what they did was right. But it was necessary. Was it petty? Yeah? But would there be any issue if they had actually managed to kill everyone? Not really.

Enlong

2009-09-16, 10:40 PM

That's another whole can of worms. :smallwink:

As you might guess the topic has come up once or twice. :smallbiggrin:
Well, this world's version of Thor has never had his alignment explicitly stated. It could be that he's Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good tendencies.

Porthos

2009-09-16, 10:48 PM

Well, this world's version of Thor has never had his alignment explicitly stated. It could be that he's Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good tendencies.

Possibly, especially since he has only been in a handful of appearances.

That being said, in said handful he's been nearly Textbook CG. Therefore I am going to go with the simpler explanation and say that either A) The One Step Rule does not apply in this world, B) There are Loosened Restrictions (any good person can worship any good god, any evil person can worship any evil god) or C) Dwarves can worship any member of the Norse Pantheon Gods of the North that they want.

It's not like Rich hasn't bent/ignored rules before, after all.

====

Back to the probability of The Snarl getting loose...

Redcloak himself states that there is a "high chance that what we are doing may result in doomsday for us all" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html).

Not exactly encouraging, if you ask me. :smalltongue:

Kish

2009-09-16, 10:50 PM

And I'm certain that some indescriminate slaughter of humans was what caused them to attack the village.

Yet, you are also not the author.

There's only one way to ensure there will never be any "issues" again--the eradication of all life--and whether you realize it or not, that's what you're advocating when you say the Sapphire Guard was correct to wipe out the entire mostly-innocent village to prevent any future retaliation. But going around about it is pointless. There is, after reading Start of Darkness and the forewords of all the published books, no doubt in my mind that Rich Burlew did not mean us to walk away with the conclusion that the Sapphire Guard did the right thing, and that's what matters for what we'll see in the rest of the comic.

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 10:55 PM

And I'm certain that some indescriminate slaughter of humans was what caused them to attack the village.

Look, I'm not saying what they did was right. But it was necessary. Was it petty? Yeah? But would there be any issue if they had actually managed to kill everyone? Not really.

Okay. So, let me get this straight.

You're applying the "she probably deserved it" defense.

To fictional characters.

Whose actions DID NOT EXIST, for one side or for the other, before their introduction?

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 11:01 PM

Possibly, especially since he has only been in a handful of appearances.

That being said, in said handful he's been nearly Textbook CG. Therefore I am going to go with the simpler explanation and say that either A) The One Step Rule does not apply in this world, B) There are Loosened Restrictions (any good person can worship any good god, any evil person can worship any evil god) or C) Dwarves can worship any member of the Norse Pantheon Gods of the North that they want.

It's not like Rich hasn't bent/ignored rules before, after all.

====

Back to the probability of The Snarl getting loose...

Redcloak himself states that there is a "high chance that what we are doing may result in doomsday for us all" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html).

Not exactly encouraging, if you ask me. :smalltongue:

Are you folks sure Durkon isn't NEUTRAL Good?

Kish

2009-09-16, 11:07 PM

Positive. "An' bein' a dwarf is about doing your duty...ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" Durkon is somewhere between Lawful and Inevitable.

(He's also actually called Lawful in OtOoPCs, should you find the in-comic evidence unconvincing.)

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 11:11 PM

Setra

2009-09-16, 11:12 PM

Well, this world's version of Thor has never had his alignment explicitly stated. It could be that he's Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good tendencies.
Right, like Belkar is Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Evil Tendencies..

Even though he hasn't been on screen often, his appearances suggest Thor is Chaotic... There's more proof of him being Chaotic than there is of him being otherwise.

Not to mention there is no proof Rich kept with the rule you have to be one step away on the Alignment chart, unless I don't know of it in which case go ahead and present it.

That said, I think Redcloak is Neutral... Evil.

I'm too ADD to explain why, ooh look a penny *runs off*

The Extinguisher

2009-09-16, 11:13 PM

Okay. So, let me get this straight.

You're applying the "she probably deserved it" defense.

To fictional characters.

Whose actions DID NOT EXIST, for one side or for the other, before their introduction?

Dood, if you're going to go down that road, there's absolutely no point for us to be discussing any of this.

There's only one way to ensure there will never be any "issues" again--the eradication of all life--and whether you realize it or not, that's what you're advocating when you say the Sapphire Guard was correct to wipe out the entire mostly-innocent village to prevent any future retaliation. But going around about it is pointless. There is, after reading Start of Darkness and the forewords of all the published books, no doubt in my mind that Rich Burlew did not mean us to walk away with the conclusion that the Sapphire Guard did the right thing, and that's what matters for what we'll see in the rest of the comic.

Like I said, I'm not going to stand here and say the Sapphire Guard was right in doing what they did. But both sides are at fault here. And in the end, I'll find myself siding with the side who doesn't want to unmake reality (potentially)

The_Weirdo

2009-09-16, 11:14 PM

Dood, if you're going to go down that road, there's absolutely no point for us to be discussing any of this.

Like I said, I'm not going to stand here and say the Sapphire Guard was right in doing what they did. But both sides are at fault here. And in the end, I'll find myself siding with the side who doesn't want to unmake reality (potentially)

Problem is, RC wants to unmake reality BECAUSE of what they did...

silvadel

2009-09-16, 11:33 PM

I think redcloak is about as close to the evil-neutral boundary as V is but on the other side -- staring at each other.

Redcloak is just about at the point where he might, just might, step into neutral given the right circumstances -- seeing himself in a mirror may well advance this process...

It has been a long road for Redcloak and he has grown a tremendous amount from the angry youth he still was despite a lifetime of time at the point of right-eyes demise.

Lord Seth

2009-09-17, 12:40 AM

This may have been brought up, but note what Redcloak says in panel nine of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html), or, to quote it:
"[Are we] on the side of Evil, as defined by our opposition to those who choose to call themselves Good? Absolutely."

Redcloak doesn't seem to be defining "evil" in the same way we would. He sees his enemies as "choosing to call themselves good" (which doesn't mean they actually ARE good) and that if evil is defined by being in opposition to good, then he's evil by that definition.

The capitalization of Good and Evil seems to imply that these aren't the same as the way we'd necessarily use good and evil. It's like in this online game I played called Achaea (which is actually still around), where there was a Good and Evil side (the capitalization is important). And while they sort of corresponded to "real life" good and evil, there were some differences. In the game, Evil wasn't about just being evil, it was "the drive for advancement, for greatness" and the goal was to, "through discipline and pain, to spur the advancement of nothing less than sentient life." Cruelty was the method used to weed out the weak from the population. Now that I think about it, it was more like taking natural selection to a big extreme than just being, well, evil.

The other side, Good, was supposed to basically be an Inquisition-esque creed. It often ended up not working out that way because people would join the Good side expecting it was all about being nice, which sort of screwed some things up. Still, the Inquisition/Crusades are probably more what the "Good" side was supposed to be about than anything else.

So I suppose you could see Good and Evil in the OOTS world as not the same as "good" and "evil" kind of like the game I mentioned. Or at least that's how Redcloak is seeing it.

Tass

2009-09-17, 01:08 AM

This may have been brought up, but note what Redcloak says in panel nine of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html), or, to quote it:
"[Are we] on the side of Evil, as defined by our opposition to those who choose to call themselves Good? Absolutely."

Redcloak doesn't seem to be defining "evil" in the same way we would. He sees his enemies as "choosing to call themselves good" (which doesn't mean they actually ARE good) and that if evil is defined by being in opposition to good, then he's evil by that definition.

(...)

So I suppose you could see Good and Evil in the OOTS world as not the same as "good" and "evil" kind of like the game I mentioned. Or at least that's how Redcloak is seeing it.

Exactly! Thank you. (Edit: or like white and red in MtG I might add)

To Redcloak evil is simply what he is, because the gods and player races has a patent on goodness.

Now Redcloak has lost sight of the goal and has done some terrible things. He would probably have been evil even if he was a human. But his brother was certainly not evil towards the end of his life. yet he couldn't escape goblinhood, and a paladin would be unlikely to have fallen for killing him. If the twelve gods didn't see killing children as evil, then they wouldn't see killing him as evil.

Had Redcloak gone about fighting for equality in a more decent manner, then he wouldn't have been evil in the true sense, but he would still have been in the warped oots sense, simply for oposing those who got to define the words in the first place.

I see nothing is start of darkness to indicate that The Dark One was a bad person. He tried to negotiate, but was murdered. He was "evil" simply for being a goblin, and became an "evil" god because goblins worshipped him.

Shale

2009-09-17, 01:20 AM

B. Dandelion

2009-09-17, 01:24 AM

Actually, believe it or not, I don't have a horse in the Sapphire Guard should have fallen debate. Really, I don't. And I'm not saying that the SG have never done bad things. Indeed I will note that Karma is indeed a You-Know-What.

What does set my teeth on edge is this idea that the Goblins (specifically the ones lead by the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle) and Sapphire Guard are morally equivalent.

Okay, that's reasonable. Although to be fair, what was being attacked in the first place was your assertion that the system was fair, counter to goblin propaganda, which sounds an awful lot more like a defense of the absolute morality that says it's always okay to kill goblins. But making comparisons between the actions of the Sapphire Guard and the Crimson Mantle doesn't at all require a rejection of absolute morality in general, just that particular (crappy) setup.

But by this point I feel like I'm putting words in Lamech's mouth when obviously he can speak for himself.

As for the rest... Well, I do admit that the post was a tad (i.e. a lot) on the snarky side. So guilty (of that at least) as charged, I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

NOTE: That smiley on the end of this post is entierly genuine and, if anything, self-effacing. :smallwink:

Well, I dunno if it means anything from me, but if you're capable of being pretty snarky it would seem you can be pretty classy if you want, too. :smallcool:

Dood, if you're going to go down that road, there's absolutely no point for us to be discussing any of this.

Like I said, I'm not going to stand here and say the Sapphire Guard was right in doing what they did. But both sides are at fault here. And in the end, I'll find myself siding with the side who doesn't want to unmake reality (potentially)

Can't we choose to side with neither? I mean I think the point here is that ultimately, the Sapphire Guard's tunnel vision leads them to work toward that very same end every bit as assiduously, only more indirectly. Their only proposed solution has been the Final Solution, which has continually failed to work -- period! If SoD is any indication it also didn't fail due to any excess of morals on their part. They kept up a failed tactic, for no other reason than spite, and thus they've been perpetuating the problem just as badly. That this doesn't give the goblins an absolution for their irresponsible behavior doesn't make it any less irresponsible in and of itself.

Tiktakkat

2009-09-17, 01:42 AM

And Magneto is Good because the Beyonder placed him with the heroes.
And Doctor Doom is Good because he was not seared by Dagger's light daggers.

You do not have to be a nihilistic sociopath like Xykon to be Evil. One can even go so far as to love puppies and kittens, make sure all virgins are properly dowered and wed (or left secured in their religious retreats), and ensure truth and justice, while still being a cold, heartless, ruthless, merciless, savage, unspeakable, ineffable, redundant, Tyrant of EVIL!!!!!, building pyramids out of the skulls of your defeated enemies, punishing properly convicted criminals (but never their innocent families) with horrific tortures, being a tyrant instead of popularly elected representative in the first place, and similar options.
Ultimately it is not so much who you are for, but the means you employ when fighting those you are against that determines where you end up on most Good-Evil alignment scales.

So Redcloak is Evil, by choice, supported by actions, over and over again.

Porthos

2009-09-17, 01:51 AM

Well, I dunno if it means anything from me, but if you're capable of being pretty snarky it would seem you can be pretty classy if you want, too. :smallcool:

Well, I always appreciate a compliment, so it does mean something to me. :smallsmile:

Anyway, the bit about "being fair" and "goblin propaganda". Whenever I use the phrase "goblin propaganda" I am 99.95% of the time referring to the color insert in Start of Darkness. Specifically, it annoys me to no end that some posters take what was shown there as absolute gospel. Particularly the bit about the gods creating NPC races as only XP chow.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it ain't Third Person Omniscient Narration, then I reserve the right to doubt what I am being told. At least a little.

I'm fairly sure that the "being fair" bit got traced back to the gods creating NPC races thing, hence my comments on it.

Same thing goes for The Dark One's backstory. It might be broadly true. Humans Can Be Bastards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreBastards) after all. But I also tend to think that we might be missing important info there.

Mind you, I'm not saying Redcloak is lying here. He might believe every word he is saying. But that doesn't mean that the stories (whatever they are) didn't get twisted throughout the years. Or someone else at some point didn't embelish/flat-out make up things. After all, it's not exactly unheard of for people to exaggerate things/make up myths to try to explain that their poor lot in life is someone else's fault.

Now what happened at Redcloak's village? That's entierly on the SG. :smalltongue: And I'd like to point out that in the (roughly) 2800 posts I've made on this board, I have defended the actions of the SG in this instance precisely zero times. :smallwink:

Sure, intellectually it's actually not that hard of an argument to say that they weren't technically "evil" in this case. One starts with the point that there's Good/Neutral/Evil actions and then there's Good/Indifferent/Bad actions. Problem is there are two sets of definition of the word "good" and sometimes they get mixed up.

I could go on and build a strong case, of course, but I don't particularly feel like defending the SG in this case. So I shant (and thus keep my perfect record intact).

I could also tear the SG to shreds with equal ease. Heck, it's actually a lot easier to rip into them, to be honest. But this board does such a good job of it, I don't feel it's necessary there either. Hence my "I don't have a horse in this race" comment.

Finally I will completely and totally agree that when Right-Eye was seen in his homemade goblin village he was some flavor of Neutral. Probably TN or CN (he may be many things, but he was never Lawful :smallwink:). And he might have even crossed over into NG/CG given half the chance. The only reason I don't flat-out put him there is because I didn't see quite enough of his actions to be completely sure.

Redcloak? Well, he's got.... Issues. And until he resolves those issues, one way or the other, I'm afraid he will be nothing more than a LE With a Cause.

Personally I rather hope he wakes up. Make for a good story, if he did. :smallwink:

The_Weirdo

2009-09-17, 02:13 AM

wipe out the entire mostly-innocent village to prevent any future retaliation.

Indeed, that's beyond "Familicide" (VERY evil spell granted to V by an Epic evil necromancer) and into "Genocide" (Even more evil action that, were the victims not untermenschen, er, I mean, goblins, would have the paladins not only lose their powers then and there, but also get treated like a bunch of thugs that just attacked a village).

Lamech

2009-09-17, 07:36 AM

Anyway, the bit about "being fair" and "goblin propaganda". Whenever I use the phrase "goblin propaganda" I am 99.95% of the time referring to the color insert in Start of Darkness. Specifically, it annoys me to no end that some posters take what was shown there as absolute gospel. Particularly the bit about the gods creating NPC races as only XP chow.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it ain't Third Person Omniscient Narration, then I reserve the right to doubt what I am being told. At least a little.

I'm fairly sure that the "being fair" bit got traced back to the gods creating NPC races thing, hence my comments on it.
Well when I said that it wasn't fair I was reffering to the later actions of the gods, as I'm pretty sure those paladins should have fallen. The later actions of the paladins, in killing goblins for being goblins. Killing the dark one when he goes to talk. (And don't give me "building an army is evil" unless you think Azure City was a bastion of evil forces.) And the presumed racism, of goblins not ever being seen in human cities. Even goblins trying to make a life for themselves.

Mind you, I'm not saying Redcloak is lying here. He might believe every word he is saying. But that doesn't mean that the stories (whatever they are) didn't get twisted throughout the years. Or someone else at some point didn't embelish/flat-out make up things. After all, it's not exactly unheard of for people to exaggerate things/make up myths to try to explain that their poor lot in life is someone else's fault.He all most certainly got it straight from the Dark One, and he is telling the truth as he is lawful. (With some free spin of course.)

P.S. @Porthos: Dang evidence against the plan being safe. He could be refering to provoking good people into destroying the gates so it isn't proof, but until we see counter evidence... Also O-Chul may believe that the the Plan is to break the world. Which would be another strike against the gods or sapphire guard if false info is being distributed, or assumed.

Liwen

2009-09-17, 07:52 AM

Part of the problem seems to be that the OotS world is playing by two sets of alignment rules. Intelligent "monsters" like goblins get full character development and can behave as any alignment, but other characters still get to treat them as an Always Evil race. If they actually were always evil, this wouldn't be a problem, but they're not. It's like the gods only read the monster manual and aren't actually paying attention to the individuals in question.

Love the idea that they are not paying attention. Thor is a pretty clear example off a careless childish god. My opinion will have little weight here, but considering everything he has done and allowed to happen to further that insane plan of his, I would say Redcloak is definitely evil, but has a chance to redemption that may only begins when he gets the balls to admit he was blinded and foolish all along. But I give it a 20% chance to happen at most

RedCloakLives!

2009-09-17, 12:32 PM

Redcloak ... good? ... I mean, isn't he basically the same as any human cleric (well not ANY but you know what i mean) except that he's a goblin? What do you think?

Jaxon: Previously [spoilers] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112367)

He's trying to change the unjust status quo; most everyone else is trying to maintain the unjust status quo.

It's interesting to observe how people react when they encounter this idea. [oops - unnecessary real world references - deleted to conform to forum rules - my bad]

Yay! Red Cloak! Freedom!

It's wrong to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin, or the size of their underbites!

Shale

2009-09-17, 12:43 PM

The rather glaring difference between those cases is that MLK, Malcolm X and their contemporaries didn't slaughter and enslave non-blacks or gladly ally themselves with mass-murderers for tactical advantage.

Optimystik

2009-09-17, 01:45 PM

...has got his picture and statue all over the city...

I agree with the rest of your post, but Arson, Murder and Jaywalking (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking) much?

Heck, that wasn't even Jaywalking, that was Crossing the Street.

"willing to tolerate all of Xykon's murders for the sake of his plan."
Exactly: for the sake of his plan. For the greater good. Sometimes you gotta do some distasteful things to achieve your aims.

They do not magically stop being distasteful (read: evil) just because there is some potentially bright outcome at the end of the tunnel.

Redcloak also murdered innocents (the circus-folk) in SoD.

Killing evil people sounds like nasty then (though they might deserve it).
What truly EVIL is killing children who are faithless yet.
Those would end up in the Wall of Faithless.

As a reminder for those of us who joined this setting from NWN, the Wall is a Forgotten Realms invention and has no place in either Core D&D cosmology (i.e. Greyhawk) or OotS by all evidence. None whatsoever.

BloodSquirrel

2009-09-17, 01:57 PM

Even if you take everything Redcloak says as literally true, he and his cause are still evil. Let's go to the start:

The Dark One, while still alive, manages to raise an enormous army. Now, at this point, he could have probably negotiated a lasting peace. Instead, he demands the other races' lands. Redcloak does his best to put this in a positive light, but if you ignore his biased narration and only look at the facts presented, The Dark One basically raised an army and threatened the other nations with it. The fact that he stopped to demand that they give him their lands before invading doesn't change much. If any human had tried that they would have gotten the same treatment.

Then, after he was killed, his army attacked and slaughtered millions of people. Even without The Dark One, they still had the opportunity to build a goblinoid civilization. Instead, they started a world war.

So, fast forward and now The Dark One is a god. A god with a plan that may or may not destroy the world. The Dark One has a minion, the bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

Now let's look at Redcloak's village for a moment- the first thing we see of them is Redcloak becoming a cleric of The Dark One, and a servant of the bearer Crimson Mantle. How does everyone else feel about this? They're proud of him, of course. The "innocent" goblins aren't really that innocent, when you get down to it. This is important because this is the only act of "random goblin slaughter" that we ever see, which is the entire basis for Redcloak supposedly being "good".

I'm going to repeat that- this one incident is the only example of Good-Aligned characters killing "innocent" goblins that we actually see, and it wouldn't even have happened if one of them hadn't been plotting to destroy the world. Now count up the number of deaths that have been justified on the back of this one incident.

But now let's look at Redcloak-

Willing to sacrifice the lives of his own people, the ones he's supposedly doing all of this to save?

Carelessly throwing away hobgoblin lives because he doesn't like them?

Oh, and look at how things turn out with his goblin city- the surviving humans are used as slave labor. The "greater good" seems to only mean the "greater good for the goblinoid races"

If you'll notice, we never see either Redcloak or The Dark One try any other means of achieving peace/prosperity for the goblin race. The entire justification of this plot of theirs is that it's the only way, but we never see any evidence of that. Redcloak has never, at any point, tried to make peace. The one goblin who does try to just settle down and live a good life seemed to be doing pretty well with it until Xykon showed up again.

I would argue that Redcloak and The Dark One are intrinsically evil. Nominally, they want the betterment of the goblin race, but they don't seem to understand how to go about it without killing people and threatening to destroy the world. They go past "disproportionate retribution" and straight into "wanton slaughter as the first means for solving a grievance".

DoctorJest

2009-09-17, 02:10 PM

Shouldn't Redcloak be good? He doesn't seem to go out of his way to cause suffering hurt people with the exception of humans (particularly the paladins of the saphire guard), but isn't that just because they kill goblins? He shows remorse after ordering hundreds if not thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths. I mean; isn't he basicly the same as any human cleric (well not ANY but you know what i mean) except that he's a goblin?
What do you think?

I think anyone who feels that "evil" means "acts like a sociopathic maniac" is using a very limited definition of "evil".

BloodSquirrel

2009-09-17, 02:18 PM

I think anyone who feels that "evil" means "acts like a sociopathic maniac" is using a very limited definition of "evil".

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, it takes a bit more than "oh yeah, I shouldn't do that anymore" to not be evil after taking pleasure in the killing of your own people.

David Argall

2009-09-17, 02:43 PM

I agree with the rest of your post, but Arson, Murder and Jaywalking (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking) much?

Heck, that wasn't even Jaywalking, that was Crossing the Street.

We are concerned with Redcloak's alignment, not his crimes. One can be quite evil with zero crimes [or good with a whole string of them]. And we routinely define evil as heavily self interest as opposed to interest in others. With an early priority of his rule being statues and lots of flags, we have that heavy self interest, and a sign of his evil nature.

Now the idea that these could signs of loyalty from the hobgoblins is not without merit, but Redcloak can clearly stop this waste of resources quite easily if he wanted to, and the hobgoblins are LE, so if they were the ones making the decision, they are confirming that this is how one appease LE rulers, and tells us the flags and statues are signs of evil.

Optimystik

2009-09-17, 04:04 PM

And we routinely define evil as heavily self interest as opposed to interest in others.

Stop; that right there is where you lost me. Self-interest is only Evil when it is done to the detriment of others. Statues and flags do not harm anyone; they are neutral.

I can be quite conceited, arrogant even, and still be neutral rather than Evil. Humility is a trait of non-evil behavior, not a requirement.

B. Dandelion

2009-09-17, 06:25 PM

Well, I always appreciate a compliment, so it does mean something to me. :smallsmile:

Anyway, the bit about "being fair" and "goblin propaganda". Whenever I use the phrase "goblin propaganda" I am 99.95% of the time referring to the color insert in Start of Darkness. Specifically, it annoys me to no end that some posters take what was shown there as absolute gospel. Particularly the bit about the gods creating NPC races as only XP chow.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it ain't Third Person Omniscient Narration, then I reserve the right to doubt what I am being told. At least a little.

Actually I've said the same thing myself -- well, coming from the opposite end. I'm continually annoyed with people who claim SoD in its entirety is unreliable, for the very reason that most of it is given in Third Person Omniscient. However, the crayon portion is the one section I'll concede is suspect. It's all secondhand. Although I've mostly applied that to the Dark One's backstory, not the creation myths. Frankly, I don't doubt them. I don't doubt Shojo's either, and they tie together well.

I'm fairly sure that the "being fair" bit got traced back to the gods creating NPC races thing, hence my comments on it.

Same thing goes for The Dark One's backstory. It might be broadly true. Humans Can Be Bastards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreBastards) after all. But I also tend to think that we might be missing important info there.

I think I'd be more surprised if we weren't missing important info. If for no other reason than Redcloak finding out that the god he'd soul his soul to has been lying the entire time would have to be the final indignity.

...Or should be, at any rate. He's suffered a lot of indignities that ought to have been "final." God damn it, Redcloak...

Mind you, I'm not saying Redcloak is lying here. He might believe every word he is saying. But that doesn't mean that the stories (whatever they are) didn't get twisted throughout the years. Or someone else at some point didn't embelish/flat-out make up things. After all, it's not exactly unheard of for people to exaggerate things/make up myths to try to explain that their poor lot in life is someone else's fault.

While that's true, I question whether the myths turning out to be true would actually invalidate that. If the goblins did get screwed over, that doesn't give them a license to behave poorly. It's also explicitly not the humans' fault that they were screwed over initially -- so why should it be their responsibility to make up that loss? I don't think asking the humans to do them a kindness by granting them some land would have been at all out of line, but I don't think that's what they did, either.

Finally I will completely and totally agree that when Right-Eye was seen in his homemade goblin village he was some flavor of Neutral. Probably TN or CN (he may be many things, but he was never Lawful :smallwink:). And he might have even crossed over into NG/CG given half the chance. The only reason I don't flat-out put him there is because I didn't see quite enough of his actions to be completely sure.

As far as evil, good and neutral go, at the beginning of SoD wherever Right-Eye was Redcloak couldn't have been far behind - or ahead of, actually, in some ways Redcloak seems the less bloodthirsty of the two, at least against the non-human races. It's Right-Eye who's delighted to see the lizardfolk killed off at Xykon's hands, wants to speak to him for that reason, and calls Lirian an "Elf bitch" while they're imprisoned.

By the end of SoD he seems TN to me. Not evil, but "good... never really entered into it", either.

Redcloak? Well, he's got.... Issues. And until he resolves those issues, one way or the other, I'm afraid he will be nothing more than a LE With a Cause.

By a fairly objective count I'd definitely say he's LE.

My theory is that he's the LE example with the emphasis on the L, while Nale would be the reverse. I tend to think the same of CE Xykon and Belkar, too -- Xykon emphasizes the E, Belkar the C. You could possibly compare Roy and Miko in the same fashion, although that one's trickier since while Miko might have been more L than G, Roy's no more a faultless Good than he is Lawful.

Personally I rather hope he wakes up. Make for a good story, if he did. :smallwink:

Yeah, ditto.

Stop; that right there is where you lost me. Self-interest is only Evil when it is done to the detriment of others. Statues and flags do not harm anyone; they are neutral.

I can be quite conceited, arrogant even, and still be neutral rather than Evil. Humility is a trait of non-evil behavior, not a requirement.

Funnily enough David, as an avowed Libertarian, almost certainly agrees with this. It's why he uses weasel phrases like "we routinely define..." instead of saying what he means straight out.

Lamech

2009-09-17, 06:44 PM

We are concerned with Redcloak's alignment, not his crimes. One can be quite evil with zero crimes [or good with a whole string of them]. And we routinely define evil as heavily self interest as opposed to interest in others. With an early priority of his rule being statues and lots of flags, we have that heavy self interest, and a sign of his evil nature.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. This is good and evil. They imply but do not need some other stuff too. Evil is debasing or destroying life, simply say spending a large amount of resources to build a statue to yourself, but not a famine is in no way evil.

The Dark One, while still alive, manages to raise an enormous army. Now, at this point, he could have probably negotiated a lasting peace. Instead, he demands the other races' lands. Redcloak does his best to put this in a positive light, but if you ignore his biased narration and only look at the facts presented, The Dark One basically raised an army and threatened the other nations with it. The fact that he stopped to demand that they give him their lands before invading doesn't change much. If any human had tried that they would have gotten the same treatment.

Then, after he was killed, his army attacked and slaughtered millions of people. Even without The Dark One, they still had the opportunity to build a goblinoid civilization. Instead, they started a world war.

So, fast forward and now The Dark One is a god. A god with a plan that may or may not destroy the world. The Dark One has a minion, the bearer of the Crimson Mantle. Do the humans let goblins come and buy land and live on it like any other person? Or get a job in a human factory? Do you believe that? I'm assuming no. So yeah, engaging in discrimination mean there needs to be a fair split of land. Or do you believe that the human kingdoms had committed no crime with there discrimination? More importantly asking for something is not a crime. Also assassinating a leader is generally considered an act of war. Which means that the humans started it. Finally the paladins have in order to stop the plan also risked the destruction of the world. As did Duokun with his self destruct rune. (Showing that risking the world is not an "evil" proposition unless the paladins are.

Now let's look at Redcloak's village for a moment- the first thing we see of them is Redcloak becoming a cleric of The Dark One, and a servant of the bearer Crimson Mantle. How does everyone else feel about this? They're proud of him, of course. The "innocent" goblins aren't really that innocent, when you get down to it. This is important because this is the only act of "random goblin slaughter" that we ever see, which is the entire basis for Redcloak supposedly being "good".

I'm going to repeat that- this one incident is the only example of Good-Aligned characters killing "innocent" goblins that we actually see, and it wouldn't even have happened if one of them hadn't been plotting to destroy the world. Now count up the number of deaths that have been justified on the back of this one incident.They were proud of him because he had gotten a powerful class. They were proud because he could he heal. They were proud because he one day could make them food. He could protect them from raiders. Ect. Ect. Sure there might have been other reasons for them to be proud of Redcloak, but one does need proof. Also if holding unsavory ideas is enough for death? We need to kill Everymember of the OotS. We can't have one standard for the goblins and another for the humans.

Also IIRC, the current bearer of the Crimsion Mantle is not very confused by the paladin attack. He understands exactly what they are doing. In the first crayons of time IIRC we are told the paladins erradicated every threat no matter how far. The paladins have almost certainly done stuff like this more than once.

If you'll notice, we never see either Redcloak or The Dark One try any other means of achieving peace/prosperity for the goblin race. The entire justification of this plot of theirs is that it's the only way, but we never see any evidence of that. Redcloak has never, at any point, tried to make peace.
He seems to have made peace with Greysky. Which also implies the rest of humanity is discriminating against a group of goblins for nothing more than retaliating against an aggressor. (And I doubt they know about the slaves. And if they did Redcloak would call them draftees, just like every other citizen of his nation. I'm also sure that Redcloak will accept the unconditional surrender of the countries who killed the Dark One.

veti

2009-09-17, 07:06 PM

Threads like this always get me wondering...

Am I the only one who thinks that highlighting the absurdities and ambiguities in the D&D alignment system - is (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) the (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) entire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html) freakin' (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) of (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html) the (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0372.html) strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0404.html)? And has been from (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html) the (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html) start (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)?

Personally, I see the whole thing as an extended essay on why the alignment system is so poorly thought out.

Just had to get that off my chest. Thank you for listening.

spargel

2009-09-17, 07:28 PM

Optimystik

2009-09-17, 07:43 PM

Personally, I see the whole thing as an extended essay on why the alignment system is so poorly thought out.

Is it? I don't think the alignment system isn't really what's at fault here. By allowing the paladins in SoD to commit the atrocity that they did and keep their powers, Rich set the stage for every other event in the strip... but letting the paladins getting away with their heinous act was contrary to the alignment system, not supportive of it.

Where the Sapphire Guard are concerned, Rich has made his own alignment restriction; "do what the gods say, and you stay a Paladin. Never mind good and evil." This is completely the opposite of what D&D (especially BoED) say to do. It's good storytelling since it makes Redcloak more sympathetic, but the failure is not on the alignment system.

Herald Alberich

2009-09-17, 08:26 PM

Optimystik

2009-09-17, 08:40 PM

MReav

2009-09-17, 08:41 PM

Say rather, that Rich enjoys using the strip to point out how the alignment system is often abused - that there are DMs who would let the SG's slaughter pass, because goblins are Always Evil (The Twelve Gods stand in for such a DM in this case). That there are people who argue that Familicide was ok, because black dragons are Always Chaotic Evil. That there are people who play Lawful Good the way Miko does.

That's what Rich has a beef with, IMO. Not the system, but how people misinterpret it.

The sad thing is that goblins are actually listed in the Monster Manual as "Usually Neutral Evil", so a non-insignificant percentage can be good and neutral.

Even in a black-and-white morality series, Familicide would be evil, since we clearly see it destroying half-dragons (and presumably their children). Had those half-dragons gone on to sire other children and grandchildren who would go on to be outwardly indistinguishable from the base race (and who breed a lot faster and more often than dragons do), there would still be potentially a lot of good and neutral aligned people that got nuked.

veti

2009-09-17, 08:54 PM

Is it? I don't think the alignment system isn't really what's at fault here. By allowing the paladins in SoD to commit the atrocity that they did and keep their powers, Rich set the stage for every other event in the strip... but letting the paladins getting away with their heinous act was contrary to the alignment system, not supportive of it.

Where the Sapphire Guard are concerned, Rich has made his own alignment restriction; "do what the gods say, and you stay a Paladin. Never mind good and evil." This is completely the opposite of what D&D (especially BoED) say to do. It's good storytelling since it makes Redcloak more sympathetic, but the failure is not on the alignment system.

That's not how I see it...

Paladins get their powers from the gods - no argument there, right? But then why should the powers have anything to do with alignment? What's to stop the gods from granting powers to anyone they like?

And yet the Players Handbook makes this whole song and dance about how paladins absolutely have to be LG or else the whole world falls apart. But for that to happen, there would have to be some kind of in-game arbiter of good and law who's higher than the gods. Otherwise, the gods could simply say "Yes, you're LG, congratulations young paladin, now go forth and smite my enemies...".

In the strip, that's exactly what happens. And that's right, I think - it's the only way the paladin class makes any kind of sense in a polytheistic world. As written in the PHB, it's an absurdity.

Shale

2009-09-17, 09:04 PM

And this is why paladins can't fall anymore in 4E. And why those rules also say the gods can grant power to whoever they like, but they only like people who have the same alignment they do.

Herald Alberich

2009-09-17, 09:05 PM

For some of Rich's thoughts on how the alignment system should be used (again, IMO), I direct you to Celia's closing argument (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html).

Edit:

And yet the Players Handbook makes this whole song and dance about how paladins absolutely have to be LG or else the whole world falls apart. But for that to happen, there would have to be some kind of in-game arbiter of good and law who's higher than the gods.

Isn't there? Aren't there clerics who don't worship any gods, and get their powers from Law (or Good, or Chaos, etc.) itself?

Kish

2009-09-17, 09:12 PM

That's not how I see it...

Paladins get their powers from the gods - no argument there, right?

Plenty of argument there in D&D. Argall's the only one who will argue it for OotS, however.
For some of Rich's thoughts on how the alignment system should be used (again, IMO), I direct you to Celia's closing argument (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html).
I always get real twitchy when someone starts equating what a character in the comic says to what Rich says. Sorry. :smalltongue:

David Argall

2009-09-17, 09:22 PM

Self-interest is only Evil when it is done to the detriment of others. Statues and flags do not harm anyone; they are neutral.

Of themselves, they are of varying alignments depending on details. But we are not discussing the sins, but the hints the alignment exists. A bear track is not of itself a sighting of a bear, but we assume there is a bear in the area.
Statues and flags are bear tracks. They are solid evidence that an evil self-styled leader is not far away.

SoD

Do the humans let goblins come and buy land and live on it like any other person? Or get a job in a human factory? Do you believe that? I'm assuming no.
Well, in the case of land, we do have Right-eye's village. Of course, we can argue that they are on land no human wants, but given the bad condition of the dirt farmers, that seems unlikely. So it seems goblins can buy land and live on it.
Now we don't even know there are any factories. But here too, we have serious reason to doubt any huge amount of discrimination. The boss makes money off his workers. So he has very strong incentive to hire any goblins who are superior/cheap workers. And if he won't, the next factory owner will, and the one after that is willing to move his factory to goblin lands to get those cheap/good workers.
[This is one reason slavery tends to disappear. The same people who believe in slavery believe in their purse even more, and when the obvious escaped slave comes by and offers to work cheap, their willingness to return the slave to its owner vanishes.]
Now there is going to be some discrimination, but as a serious explanation of what is going on, it does not work. It is an excuse, not a reason.

So yeah, engaging in discrimination mean there needs to be a fair split of land.
This amounts to saying we right past possible wrongs by creating current definite wrongs. Assuming there is any great amount of discrimination, all that needs to be done is to end the discrimination. Trying to correct the past just opens up a mare's nest.

asking for something is not a crime.
"Asking" while pointing a gun, or army, at someone is quite a different story.

Also assassinating a leader is generally considered an act of war.
Self defense is attacking the other guy or nation before he can attack you. Of course it is all too easy to insist your aggression is self defense, but it is quite easy to think the Dark One was acting as a mugger here, "hand it over or I shoot".

Which means that the humans started it.
We only have have a very biased source saying that.

Finally the paladins have in order to stop the plan also risked the destruction of the world. As did Duokun with his self destruct rune. (Showing that risking the world is not an "evil" proposition unless the paladins are.

Redcloak considers the destruction of the world a perfectly acceptable result, not something that must be risked to avoid something worse.

They were proud of him because he had gotten a powerful class.
Possibly, but what we can be sure of is the presence of the old Redcloak, who is dedicated to the Dark One's plan. That means we can not assume the innocence of any of those we see in the village.

He seems to have made peace with Greysky. Which also implies the rest of humanity is discriminating against a group of goblins for nothing more than retaliating against an aggressor.
This is rather obviously a quite biased conclusion. One problem is that Greysky is shown as a highly evil city, making any peace with it evidence of evil intent or action by Redcloak and company.
Nor do we have much evidence of aggression by Azure City. Forts and signal stations are defensive measures.

(And I doubt they know about the slaves. And if they did Redcloak would call them draftees, just like every other citizen of his nation. I'm also sure that Redcloak will accept the unconditional surrender of the countries who killed the Dark One.
An event that happened centuries ago is supposed to justify attack now?

Herald Alberich

2009-09-17, 09:25 PM

I always get real twitchy when someone starts equating what a character in the comic says to what Rich says. Sorry. :smalltongue:

In general, yes, I'd be wary too. I thought about this, and I think it's a safe assumption (but still an assumption, so yeah). Restrict it to Celia's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th speech bubbles, if you like. Roy's evaluation supports the view - he got in to Celestia because he was trying, not because he was the paragon of LG.

And obviously the speech is focused on LG, and doesn't concern Evil as much. I only meant to provide food for thought.

spargel

2009-09-17, 09:29 PM

In general, yes, I'd be wary too. I thought about this, and I think it's a safe assumption (but still an assumption, so yeah). Restrict it to Celia's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th speech bubbles, if you like. Roy's evaluation supports the view - he got in to Celestia because he was trying, not because he was the paragon of LG.

And obviously the speech is focused on LG, and doesn't concern Evil as much. I only meant to provide food for thought.

How did Roy get considered to be Lawful Good anyways? He usually tries to be Good, but I haven't really noticed him trying hard to be Lawful.

Herald Alberich

2009-09-17, 09:37 PM

How did Roy get considered to be Lawful Good anyways? He usually tries to be Good, but I haven't really noticed him trying hard to be Lawful.

That ... is a good question. According to the deva (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), it's mostly that he went ahead and accepted his father's oath, working to fulfill it despite the fact it was dumped in his lap without his consent. She then immediately points out that he uses Chaotic means, but then says that he's trying and that's good enough. I don't know of any other evidence.

This is rather off-topic, though. A new thread about it might be in order.

B. Dandelion

2009-09-17, 10:16 PM

That's not how I see it...

Paladins get their powers from the gods - no argument there, right? But then why should the powers have anything to do with alignment? What's to stop the gods from granting powers to anyone they like?

And yet the Players Handbook makes this whole song and dance about how paladins absolutely have to be LG or else the whole world falls apart. But for that to happen, there would have to be some kind of in-game arbiter of good and law who's higher than the gods. Otherwise, the gods could simply say "Yes, you're LG, congratulations young paladin, now go forth and smite my enemies...".

In the strip, that's exactly what happens. And that's right, I think - it's the only way the paladin class makes any kind of sense in a polytheistic world. As written in the PHB, it's an absurdity.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. In a game, the arbiter is the DM. Outside of a game, it doesn't hold together because that arbiter is the huge missing piece.

Zevox

2009-09-17, 10:25 PM

Isn't there? Aren't there clerics who don't worship any gods, and get their powers from Law (or Good, or Chaos, etc.) itself?
Depends on the setting. In core D&D, yes, that is allowed (though from where I'm sitting it makes absolutely no sense). In my preferred setting, the Forgotten Realms, it isn't allowed, and divine magic users can only acquire their power from a god or gods.

In the OotS world, the "Cleric of an alignment" rule has been referenced once or twice for a joke, but we've never seen any Cleric of that type, so it's not entirely clear whether the world has any such thing.

Zevox

BloodSquirrel

2009-09-17, 10:36 PM

Do the humans let goblins come and buy land and live on it like any other person? Or get a job in a human factory? Do you believe that? I'm assuming no. So yeah, engaging in discrimination mean there needs to be a fair split of land. Or do you believe that the human kingdoms had committed no crime with there discrimination? More importantly asking for something is not a crime. Also assassinating a leader is generally considered an act of war. Which means that the humans started it. Finally the paladins have in order to stop the plan also risked the destruction of the world. As did Duokun with his self destruct rune. (Showing that risking the world is not an "evil" proposition unless the paladins are.

First off, you're making a lot of assumptions here. What evidence do we have that goblins were being discriminated against en mass? What examples do we have of goblins trying to make peaceful deals with the other races and being refused simply because they were goblins? You're just assuming that they were, and I reject your assumption. The entire point is that all we have on this is Redcloak's word.

Remember, you're trying to justify mass murder and a plot that may destroy the world. The burden of proof that this is somehow justified is on you.

Second off, we only have a couple of lines of The Dark One's speech to the other races, and they confirm that he wasn't merely seeking peace. You're not going to get "The Dark One raised an army and threatened the other races" from narration given by Redcloak; he has an obvious bias. What the line does show, however, is that The Dark One wasn't negotiating for peace, he was demanding lands. If the goblins really were these poor victims Redcloak makes them out to be, you'd think that the Dark One would start off with "Please stop sending soldiers into our lands and killing our children."

Third, somebody assassinating your leader does not give you moral grounds to kill millions of people who had no say in the decision in the first place. Or do you think that WWI was justified because of one political assassination? There is, in fact, no universally agreed upon set of justifications to start a war. Some people don't even agree that being invaded justifies going to war.

And, on top of that, unrestrained slaughter is considered to be a war crime. Even in Redcloak's version of the story we get a pretty clear picture of flat-out genocide against the good races. This doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that The Dark One and his army had been raised for peaceful purposes.

Finally, the Paladins regarded destroying the gate as less likely to cause the destruction of the world than letting Xykon and Redcloak screw around with Snarl. Redcloak has a choice between threatening to destroy the world and going about his goals any other way. The paladins only had a choice of which flavor of threat to the world they were going to get.

They were proud of him because he had gotten a powerful class. They were proud because he could he heal. They were proud because he one day could make them food. He could protect them from raiders. Ect. Ect. Sure there might have been other reasons for them to be proud of Redcloak, but one does need proof. Also if holding unsavory ideas is enough for death? We need to kill Everymember of the OotS. We can't have one standard for the goblins and another for the humans.

Worshiping an evil god and supporting somebody who plans on, at best, enslaving the other races goes a bit past "unsavory ideas". The fact that they didn't know about these plans just goes to show what a bastard the bearer of the Crimson Mantle was to get them involved in this mess without warning them.

I'm also not saying that the paladins didn't go too far, but that it wasn't a random act of violence against goblins. There was a very specific reason for it, and there's no evidence that it would have happened if they hadn't been serving the BotCM and his evil god.

Also IIRC, the current bearer of the Crimsion Mantle is not very confused by the paladin attack. He understands exactly what they are doing. In the first crayons of time IIRC we are told the paladins erradicated every threat no matter how far. The paladins have almost certainly done stuff like this more than once.

Of course he isn't confused, he has a genocidal plan that he knows the Paladins are aware of. No big shock that they'd come after him. This hardly qualifies as evidence that the paladins have been knocking off goblin villages left and right.

He seems to have made peace with Greysky. Which also implies the rest of humanity is discriminating against a group of goblins for nothing more than retaliating against an aggressor. (And I doubt they know about the slaves. And if they did Redcloak would call them draftees, just like every other citizen of his nation. I'm also sure that Redcloak will accept the unconditional surrender of the countries who killed the Dark One.

The fact that he was able to make peace with one set of humans is direct evidence against not being able to make peace with humans, not evidence for other humans rejecting him.

veti

2009-09-18, 12:04 AM

Optimystik

2009-09-18, 12:07 AM

Paladins get their powers from the gods - no argument there, right? But then why should the powers have anything to do with alignment? What's to stop the gods from granting powers to anyone they like?

But that's exactly what's happening in OotS. The paladins are retaining their powers despite committing very questionable acts, precisely because the 12 gods are allowing them to do so. You're raising my own point.

And yet the Players Handbook makes this whole song and dance about how paladins absolutely have to be LG or else the whole world falls apart. But for that to happen, there would have to be some kind of in-game arbiter of good and law who's higher than the gods. Otherwise, the gods could simply say "Yes, you're LG, congratulations young paladin, now go forth and smite my enemies...".

There are. Ao in FR, and the DM himself in Greyhawk, hold the gods to task and make them stick to their portfolios. For an LG god to grant paladin-status to a non-LG character would be a violation of these strictures.

OotS has no such arbiter, and so we have inconsistency. But this is a fault of OotS (the setting, not the comic). D&D is not to blame; settings like FR and Eberron have proven that the game and its divine classes are not inherently broken as you seem to be claiming.

In the strip, that's exactly what happens. And that's right, I think - it's the only way the paladin class makes any kind of sense in a polytheistic world. As written in the PHB, it's an absurdity.

I disagree. If OotS had an overdeity or other figure, you can bet the 12 wouldn't be allowed to sanction a crusade against goblins minding their own business. My prediction, in fact:

The Snarl will be such a figure by the story's end, keeping the deities in line either through fear of adding to its power with further turmoil, or overtly by achieving sentience.

Porthos

2009-09-18, 12:25 AM

But that's exactly what's happening in OotS. The paladins are retaining their powers despite committing very questionable acts, precisely because the 12 gods are allowing them to do so.

To be fair, we don't actually know the reason here. Since both the Comic (propaganda [this time by the Sapphire Guard :smallwink:] notwithstanding) and Rich have been pretty tightlipped about the subject, we're close to the Blind Man and the Elephant here.

There are several reasons why the Paladins might not have Fallen, with The Twelve Gods Allow Them To Commit Those Acts being only one of the (admittedly likely) options.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out. :smallsmile:

If OotS had an overdeity or other figure, you can bet the 12 wouldn't be allowed to sanction a crusade against goblins minding their own business.

Ahhhh. That's not exactly what is going with the goblins that the SG is targetting, you know. I mean, let's not go overboard here when addressing the many faults of the SG.

Shale

2009-09-18, 12:30 AM

Anyway, Redcloak's plan doesn't involve war - the whole hobgoblin army thing is really just a distraction to him. The approach he's trying actually has a reasonable chance of succeeding with minimal bloodshed [spoiler snipped]

Whether or not it's in his plan, he's still waging war, willingly and gleefully, not to mention propping up a lich who murders like most people breathe.

veti

2009-09-18, 01:12 AM

There are. Ao in FR, and the DM himself in Greyhawk, hold the gods to task and make them stick to their portfolios. For an LG god to grant paladin-status to a non-LG character would be a violation of these strictures.

But Ao can only fulfil this role if he personally micro-manages the powers and status of every single paladin of every god, all the time. Because what the PHB says is that they Fall automatically, the moment they commit any sort of evil act - there's no room for any intervention or wiggle room by their god. That's a much more hands-on sort of role for Ao than I'd ever imagined, although of course YMMV.

OotS has no such arbiter, and so we have inconsistency. But this is a fault of OotS (the setting, not the comic). D&D is not to blame;

On the contrary, D&D is totally to blame - because it fails to say, explicitly, that any coherent campaign setting requires the existence of a single all-powerful divine force of some sort. The fact that such a force has been introduced to some settings as a sort of "fudge factor", specifically to resolve these issues, only goes to show that the designers are well aware of this lack, and have still chosen not to 'fess up to it.

BloodSquirrel

2009-09-18, 01:21 AM

I refer the poster to the example of the orcs in OtOoPCs, who were doing nothing more dangerous than camping out for concert tickets when multiple parties of human/demi-human adventurers were sent out to kill them.

I haven't read OtOoPCs, so I can't comment on it.

There are, I think, enough examples to demonstrate deeply entrenched racial prejudice in the Stickverse. Consider this ploy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html), for instance - do you think it would've worked so well if the races were reversed?

I think it might not have worked so well if he wasn't, in fact, unlawfully attacking somebody who wasn't able to fight back.

Well, yes, but that doesn't demonstrate "evil". SOD The whole nub of the Dark One's complaint is that the goblin races were stuck with all the scraggiest, least fertile land. Of course any attempt by them to gain parity is going to involve them taking land from other races. Unless someone can come up with a way of creating new fertile land, of course - which could be the basis of an equitable settlement, but it'd be a big undertaking...

The Dark One knew that when you want to negotiate a settlement, the first step is to establish a position of strength. The goblin races have no other leverage over the humans: they can't withdraw their labour or deny their trade or resources, because humans don't use any of these things. All they are is prey. The only leverage they can possibly have is military force.

Would you actually support a real-life war because one country has decided that the only way it's going to advance economically was through military force?

We can't say that there was no other way to improve the situation for the goblins, because we've never seen them try. Getting respect for goblin rights would have been a nice way to start.

Yes, but plenty of people do think that. You just said it yourself: "there is no universally agreed upon set of justifications to start a war". But if there is any such thing as a "justifiable war" - and I think you'll have to agree that there is - it suggests that there is such a thing as a condition that justifies it. What is such a condition? Well, that's down to the judgment of whoever is responsible for making the decision.

SOD Anyway, Redcloak's plan doesn't involve war - the whole hobgoblin army thing is really just a distraction to him. The approach he's trying actually has a reasonable chance of succeeding with minimal bloodshed - far less than the Dark One's first attempt.

Plenty of people have, historically, thought a lot of things that are pretty unambiguously evil. Once again, try applying this to real life for a moment instead of accepting it because of a sympathetic POV-

If Canadian agents assassinated the US president (after he threatened to invade them, no less), would that justify the US unleashing it's full nuclear arsenal against Canada? That's the kind of response we're dealing with here.

Also, waging war as a distraction is just as evil as waging war for direct conquest.

The paladins don't know their assets from their elementals when it comes to that sort of judgment call. "Destroy the Gate" is clearly a rule bequeathed to them by Soon, not a conscious decision deliberated by the Sapphire Guard at the time of the invasion. And Soon had no way of knowing what sort of threat the Gate would face, or that two other gates would have been destroyed previously by the time they got to his.

If "Destroy the Gate" was a rule bequeathed by Soon, don't you think they'd have questioned why the OOTs was being put on trial for the exact same thing? Besides, the Paladins not having enough info to work on is irrelevant- they had to choose between letting Xykon screw around with Snarl or destroying a gate (which could be rebuilt). There was no "not risk destroying the world" option for them.

As for Redcloak - perhaps you could outline some sort of plan to achieve his goals that doesn't involve behaviour that you would consider "evil"? 'Cuz I'm blowed if I can think of one.

I've already laid it out. You go to negotiate, and you ask for peace instead of other people's stuff. Not being at war is a pretty good start for raising your stakes in life and trying to build a civilization.

SOD Yes, the paladins had a reason for their attack. Too bad they didn't tell the goblins what it was, so that they might have some options (e.g. handing the BotCM over peacefully, or telling him to go somewhere far away). As it is, you're really stretching credulity with this "they brought it on themselves" line of argument.

You're really stretching credulity with this "worshipers of an evil, destructive god who preaches subjugation of the other races were the poor innocent victims of racism" line of argument. They weren't killed because they were goblins, they were killed because they were supporting the BotCM.

No, the fact that he's been able to make peace with one set of humans now is evidence that (SOD) the Dark One was right in his initial assumption, that he could win ground by negotiating from a position of strength.

First off, being able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. That's actually a very important part of morality. I'm right about the fact that I could beat up a toddler, it doesn't mean that it's ok for me to do it.

Second off, The Dark One was quite wrong. He thought he could threaten humans into submission, and he got killed for it.

ericgrau

2009-09-18, 01:28 AM

Shouldn't Redcloak be good? He doesn't seem to go out of his way to cause suffering hurt people with the exception of humans (particularly the paladins of the saphire guard), but isn't that just because they kill goblins? He shows remorse after ordering hundreds if not thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths. I mean; isn't he basicly the same as any human cleric (well not ANY but you know what i mean) except that he's a goblin?
What do you think?

No. Evil is evil, in spite of an invalid justification. Now if he had a real justification for his actions - such as to stop others from committing evil - and wasn't instead, say, killing and enslaving thousands of innocents, that'd be a different story.

David Argall

2009-09-18, 03:19 AM

By the base rules of D&D, Good, Evil, Law, & Chaos are facts, forces of nature, fixed beyond the ability of the gods to change. The gods are simply super-monsters. They can be able to create monsters and races, but they remain just inhabitants of the planes, not creators of the elemental forces.
Now to what extent the OOTS world is following D&D rules is not so clear.

I refer the poster to the example of the orcs in OtOoPCs, who were

doing nothing more dangerous than camping out for concert tickets when multiple parties of human/demi-human adventurers were sent out to kill them.

As it happens, the orcs attacked first, and stated a motive of getting the best seats at the concert. Roy and friends were about to attack, but it was still the orcs who got in the first swing, and with no intention of self defense.
The same conversation has both sides agreeing that orcs are violent and antisocial. So this shows no discrimination, just a realistic view of reality. That it was mistaken in this case does not make it morally wrong.

MReav

2009-09-18, 03:37 AM

As it happens, the orcs attacked first, and stated a motive of getting the best seats at the concert. Roy and friends were about to attack, but it was still the orcs who got in the first swing, and with no intention of self defense.
The same conversation has both sides agreeing that orcs are violent and antisocial. So this shows no discrimination, just a realistic view of reality. That it was mistaken in this case does not make it morally wrong.

Actually, the Orcs mentioned that they were attacked several times by other adventurers, so this is likely pre-emptive

Turkish Delight

2009-09-18, 04:04 AM

Depends on the setting. In core D&D, yes, that is allowed (though from where I'm sitting it makes absolutely no sense).

It would probably make sense if viewed from an Eastern religious perspective, where the lack of emphasis on deities makes the need for an all-powerful Celestial sugar-daddy to send down Cure Moderate Wounds every day less pressing.

Interesting that it seems to have been avoided with the Azurites, who worship a pantheon of deities based on the Chinese Zodiac, none of which are really 'Gods' of any kind in actual traditional Chinese thought. All the other pantheons are loosely based on real life deities of days and cultures past, but the Azurites manufacture a mythology that was never there. That's hardly proof of anything, but to me it suggests you have to have a god to be a cleric in OotS world.

Setra

2009-09-18, 05:50 AM

This is what I've been saying for a while now. In a game, the arbiter is the DM. Outside of a game, it doesn't hold together because that arbiter is the huge missing piece.
Rich is the DM, obviously :smalltongue:

B. Dandelion

2009-09-18, 06:50 AM

Rich is the DM, obviously :smalltongue:

Missing the point. OOTS isn't a campaign setting. It's a story -- which is supposed to be self-contained. If there's a missing piece to that story, which makes it only consistent when it's forced into the framework of the game, it isn't self-contained.

Sewblon

2009-09-18, 01:58 PM

He would probably be Lawful Neutral if his plan didn't involve killing gods anyone else who gets in the way.

Lamech

2009-09-18, 02:57 PM

First off, you're making a lot of assumptions here. What evidence do we have that goblins were being discriminated against en mass? What examples do we have of goblins trying to make peaceful deals with the other races and being refused simply because they were goblins? You're just assuming that they were, and I reject your assumption. The entire point is that all we have on this is Redcloak's word. Well I don't actually have proof, but the fact that paladins attacked a village simply for having the bearer of the crimsion mantle, and that Miko believes Redcloak seeks the destruction of the world, is soulless and feels nothing for others. That mantle makes him the religious leader of the goblins, or simply even a powerful cleric, nothing that would give Miko a reason to think any of that. Also, the aperthied that the goblins are living under. The goblin village didn't have say... poor humans living in it, and none of the richest goblins are ever shown moving up to human society. (Also if Redcloak's first town was targeted because of the mantle they would have been attacked by the Sapphire guard for the mantle.) Also the assumption that orcs are enemies in OotPC. And that Redcloak was attacked by adventures after Xykon left.

Remember, you're trying to justify mass murder and a plot that may destroy the world. The burden of proof that this is somehow justified is on you. No I'm trying to say that the Dark One didn't commit any crimes while alive (that we know of), the human kingdoms have acted badly, and that the Sapphire guard has under taken actions as bad as the "plan". (Yes the individual paladins may be deluded to the danger, but theres no excuse for not using commune to understand the crimsion mantles motives.) And that the Sapphire guard is fairly close to a genocidal orginization with there crusades. And that capturing Azure City was a justified response to the paladin crusades.

Second off, we only have a couple of lines of The Dark One's speech to the other races, and they confirm that he wasn't merely seeking peace. You're not going to get "The Dark One raised an army and threatened the other races" from narration given by Redcloak; he has an obvious bias. What the line does show, however, is that The Dark One wasn't negotiating for peace, he was demanding lands. If the goblins really were these poor victims Redcloak makes them out to be, you'd think that the Dark One would start off with "Please stop sending soldiers into our lands and killing our children."That might be a more effective method of negotiation, but being ineffective does not mean evil and deserving of death. Secondly, if the Dark One was demading land in response to the discrimination of the humans it was more than justified; in the real world we deal with discrimination by making the discriminator pay the victim, and we use force to ensure it. (Yes there is a court case to validity, that doesn't matter.) Also just because someone is making demand on you one doesn't get to start up with acts of war.

Third, somebody assassinating your leader does not give you moral grounds to kill millions of people who had no say in the decision in the first place. Or do you think that WWI was justified because of one political assassination? There is, in fact, no universally agreed upon set of justifications to start a war. Some people don't even agree that being invaded justifies going to war. Sometimes good soldiers who want nothing more to fight for there country or simply believe propaganda are killed, while they have nothing but good intentions. Their deaths are on the hands of the starters of the war. Not on the victim of the agression that killed them. If a country find a justified war being waged against it, its duty is to surrender.

And, on top of that, unrestrained slaughter is considered to be a war crime. Even in Redcloak's version of the story we get a pretty clear picture of flat-out genocide against the good races. This doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that The Dark One and his army had been raised for peaceful purposes.What was the quote again? I don't have the book with me. And if the goblins did commit war crimes it just means they are also in the wrong. (I would also suppose that Redcloak shouldn't be demanding unconditional surrender either in that case.)

Finally, the Paladins regarded destroying the gate as less likely to cause the destruction of the world than letting Xykon and Redcloak screw around with Snarl. Redcloak has a choice between threatening to destroy the world and going about his goals any other way. The paladins only had a choice of which flavor of threat to the world they were going to get.With out the gates the fabric of the world will continue to errode. (The forest rift started small (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html) and grew to about the size of trees by start of darkness. As far as I can tell the best chance of the gates being rebuilt is Redcloak and Xykon. And the paladins of the Sapphire guard? They believe that the plan involes destroying creation. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html) They have no idea what the plan entails but they are willing to risk the desruction of the world. They have no idea what the risk is when they destroy the gates. Also in that seen we see that Paladins HAVE attacked other goblins (crusades). Also evidence that had a paladin seen Redcloak wandering around in Right-Eye's village they would have assumed Redcloak was plotting to destroy the world, and of course attacked.
(In fact what evidence do we have that Redcloak's mentor was plotting anything? Redcloak had settled down. They most certainly didn't cast commune and ask: Is the current bearer of the crimsion mantle plotting to destroy the world? (The answer would be no.) That implies that the paladins attacked with out proof. Big fat oops.)

P.S. Also I'm sure Redcloak believes there is little risk as well. In fact I bet he believes a peaceful world would ensure the saftey of the gates and increase the long term chance of survival. Similar to who O-Chul believed that the destruction of the gate would increase the long term odds.

Worshiping an evil god and supporting somebody who plans on, at best, enslaving the other races goes a bit past "unsavory ideas". The fact that they didn't know about these plans just goes to show what a bastard the bearer of the Crimson Mantle was to get them involved in this mess without warning them.Funny I don't recall slaves in Redcloaks village. And I also recall that the Dark One told his people equality was his plan. (Remember Redcloak=lawful=honest.) Although isn't rat evil? I guess we have to execute all of Azure City. And him not talking about the plan shows... absolutly nothing. And regardless of what ideas they hold it doesn't make attacking them okay, free speech and all that jazz.

I'm also not saying that the paladins didn't go too far, but that it wasn't a random act of violence against goblins. There was a very specific reason for it, and there's no evidence that it would have happened if they hadn't been serving the BotCM and his evil god.
That the bearer of the crimsion mantle was in the village. Thats the reason right? I distinctly remember another bearer of the crimsion mantle trying to settle down and start a family. There is no way that the paladins cast commune and asked their gods if the Crimsion Mantle was plotting world destruction. (It would be no.) And I'm glad you agree that the paladins attacked would have attacked Right-Eye's village, and that they were the agressors with there little war with Redcloak.

Of course he isn't confused, he has a genocidal plan that he knows the Paladins are aware of. No big shock that they'd come after him. This hardly qualifies as evidence that the paladins have been knocking off goblin villages left and right.He would be surprised if it was the first time, the paladins had done so.

The fact that he was able to make peace with one set of humans is direct evidence against not being able to make peace with humans, not evidence for other humans rejecting him.
After aquiring an army. Kind of shows the justification for the Dark One's aquiring an army.

An event that happened centuries ago is supposed to justify attack now? Only if hostilities are on going. And the victim hasn't done something wrong. Which they probably arn't, but I was responding to a comment about Redcloak having to make peace.

Nor do we have much evidence of aggression by Azure City. Forts and signal stations are defensive measures.Talking about Azure Cities attack on Redcloak's village. IIRC we saw Redcloak fighting the Sapphire guard in SoD, which means they didn't actually achieve peace. And we never see Recloak having a chance at war crimes until the city was taken.You know I think I have spoilers for OotPC, SoD, and heroes volume 5.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-18, 03:18 PM

Tass:
"Yeah thats the whole point of the comic."
Wait. What? What do you mean?

"One side just happens to have a patent on "goodness", meaning that the other side has to be evil."
Why can't redcloak be good just because the paladins are? Good people can fight each other, it happens all the time.

"the average goblin does seem to be rather evil in his desires"
Fair point. But I was just talking about redcloak not all goblins.

Porthos:
"They can be all those things and still be evil."
I realise this but my point is that he's doing almost the exact same thing as the paladins and other do-gooder type people except that he's a goblin. How many paladins crusade to destroy goblins? If the world was dominated by goblins who killed and hunted humans wouldn't they/we/you fight back? It seems like a bit of a double standard to me.The core issue with this line of reasoning is that in the fantasy realm of D&D, alignment is measurable. It is an attribute every being possesses, and it can be detected by very trivial magics or even some innate abilities. And this knowledge is also broadly disseminated amongst peoples who do not have the ability to detect evil or alignment themselves, such as the simple citizens of the typical human town. They all know that orcs and goblins are evil.

Once this is understood, then everything really boils down to a question of what is any given being's alignment. If they are evil, then they are able to be killed as such by neutrals or goods without alignment or moral repercussion. No restrictions such as "You haven't seen them do anything evil", or "you have no evidence that they are planning on doing anything evil" is required before taking action against these evil beings. Again, because their evil alignment exists and can be measured as such. The sole restriction on this is law, which allows for cultures where evils and goods or neutrals may live next to each other with an expectation of peaceful relations. And the broadly typical D&D setting is one where adventurers encountering evil being outside of the bounds of any law.

good_lookin_gus

2009-09-18, 03:56 PM

To be fair, we don't actually know the reason here. Since both the Comic (propaganda [this time by the Sapphire Guard :smallwink:] notwithstanding) and Rich have been pretty tightlipped about the subject, we're close to the Blind Man and the Elephant here.

There are several reasons why the Paladins might not have Fallen, with The Twelve Gods Allow Them To Commit Those Acts being only one of the (admittedly likely) options.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out. :smallsmile:

That sentiment has been bothering me for a while now, though the apt analogy of the elephant among the blind escaped me. Thanks:smallsmile:

Lamech

2009-09-18, 05:08 PM

The core issue with this line of reasoning is that in the fantasy realm of D&D, alignment is measurable. It is an attribute every being possesses, and it can be detected by very trivial magics or even some innate abilities. And this knowledge is also broadly disseminated amongst peoples who do not have the ability to detect evil or alignment themselves, such as the simple citizens of the typical human town. They all know that orcs and goblins are evil.

Once this is understood, then everything really boils down to a question of what is any given being's alignment. If they are evil, then they are able to be killed as such by neutrals or goods without alignment or moral repercussion. No restrictions such as "You haven't seen them do anything evil", or "you have no evidence that they are planning on doing anything evil" is required before taking action against these evil beings. Again, because their evil alignment exists and can be measured as such. The sole restriction on this is law, which allows for cultures where evils and goods or neutrals may live next to each other with an expectation of peaceful relations. And the broadly typical D&D setting is one where adventurers encountering evil being outside of the bounds of any law.
Thats not how DnD morality works at all. The only deciding factors in if someone can be killed or not is if they are "innocent" or not, and if they are "life" or not. If they fail either test they are a target, if they succeded on both then they are exempt from debasing or destroying. (Also one should probably consider the repercusions of killing say, a non-innocent, but reformed person to others. And we can debate if "innocent" can be regained.) If say, commiting stealing is the standard of innocent or guilt then Roy, who defrauded the innocent inn owner, is free game. (Obviously a bad standard.) If say not exceptionally harmful assult is the standard then Elan who attacked Kabuto is free game. (Also a bad standard IMO.) So we are left with grevious harm for people to be fair game. Needless to say, just pinging evil is not enough. A baby black, who has not had the chance to do anything wrong, would be innocent life, despite being evil.

P.S. IMO DnD morality is a horrible system.

Kish

2009-09-18, 05:11 PM

Once this is understood, then everything really boils down to a question of what is any given being's alignment. If they are evil, then they are able to be killed as such by neutrals or goods without alignment or moral repercussion.
That would be true, if no creature ever changed alignment and if every creature who pinged as evil was, and would always be, morally equivalent to Xykon.

In other words, it would be true in a game that very superficially resembled D&D but was actually nothing like it.

spargel

2009-09-18, 05:16 PM

In other words, it would be true in a game that very superficially resembled D&D but was actually nothing like it.

Oh really?

Dixieboy

2009-09-18, 05:40 PM

Well are you claiming that every single wealthy man in Rome was evil? They had slaves and a great fondness for statues (well mostly busts, but lets not split hairs).
Quite a few of them? yes.

Most? possibly.

All? No.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-18, 07:12 PM

Thats not how DnD morality works at all.It is absolutely the way that D&D morality works. The only reason that this is confusing to some people is that there have been a number of rather poorly written and contradictory splat books written which attempted to make it different than it is.

P.S. IMO DnD morality is a horrible system.I agree completely.

That would be true, if no creature ever changed alignment and if every creature who pinged as evil was, and would always be, morally equivalent to Xykon.

In other words, it would be true in a game that very superficially resembled D&D but was actually nothing like it.By quoting a part of my post but leaving off the restriction of law, you have made an accurate statement which neatly sidesteps my point. In almost every game which is actually like D&D you have groups of adventurers leaving the lands where the rule of law stands and barging into dungeons/ruins/hollowed out mega-trees/whatever and killing the beings they find there and taking their stuff. Can you play the game differently? Of course. But this is the gold standard, the trope namer, and so this is the play style with which the concepts of the game need to be most focused. And there is no penalty whatsoever to any good aligned character for killing a Goblin out of hand in these situations. Quite the opposite, it is very likely that not only will the character gain experience for this act, but also that some Noble/Priest/Mayor/Mysterious old woman/Wizard/Deity/whatever will also be grateful to the characters for doing so, and will also reward them with gold/magic/lands/favors/whatever.

This is how the game works, and it is quite clear from reading the rules that this is so. The only way to be confused on the issue is to try to import real-world morality and/or present day legal evidentiary rules into a fantasy game. Don't do that, because in the real world alignment is not detectable or provable.

Lamech

2009-09-18, 08:23 PM

Billy: The idea that evil can be killed with out justification or proof of some sort of crime is totally wrong.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. There is nothing about protecting only life of a certain alignment. Its "innocent life", if the evil creature hasn't commited a crime at what ever threshold it takes to lose its "innocent" status, then it is off the list of killable targets. I would argue that the existance of "always evil" creatures prove that evil creatures can be innocent. If those creatures could not choose to not commit the crimes they so often do, then they wouldn't be responsible and therefore innocent of them. I do not know of any moral system that condems people for things they had no choice about.

Porthos

2009-09-18, 08:49 PM

<<<NOTE: This post has been rendered superfluous thanks to a clairification by Lamech == I'm leaving it up because A) it's informative and B) I typed worked hard on it and I ain't sending to the Ether :smalltongue:>>>

I do not know of any legal system that condems people for things they had no choice about.

Now "had no choice about" is an... interesting phrase. And one that is full of problems. Anyway, you might want to read up about Insanity and crimes. It can be a bit of an eye opener. For instance, if people are insane and commit crimes, they can still be sent to prison. Depends on the crime, and the type of insanity. Mostly it can (but not always) hinge on "telling the difference between right and wrong".

Insanity Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Incompetency_and_Mental_Illness) (particularly the Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) or a Guilty but Insane(GBI) stuff)

Insanity is a legal concept, not a psychiatric concept of mental illness. Whether a person has a diagnosed mental disorder is not sufficient reason, from the court's point of view, to relieve them from all responsibility for illegal acts they may commit. A person may have a mental disorder and be a competent person in many other ways, able to write checks, handle his personal affairs, hold a job and carry on a variety of behaviors despite the mental disorder. Likewise, a person may commit a criminal act, independent of the fact that he has a mental disorder. Depending on the jurisdiction, other elements need to be proven, for the court to accept that the mental disorder was responsible for the criminal act, that is, it must be shown that the defendant committed the crime because of the mental disorder. For example, the mental disorder interfered with his ability to determine right from wrong at the time the offense was committed.

It would unduly stigmatize a person with a diagnosed mental illness to say that because of the mental illness he is not responsible for his behavior. Therefore, persons whose mental disorder is not in dispute will be determined sane as the court will decide that despite a "mental illness" the defendant was responsible for the acts he committed and he will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has a mental illness and it is determined that the mental illness interfered with the person's ability to determine right from wrong, and other associated criteria a jurisdiction may have, and if the person is willing to plead guilty or is proven guilty in a court of law, some jurisdiction have an alternative option known as either a Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) or a Guilty but Insane verdict. The GBMI verdict is available as an alternative to, rather than in lieu of, a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict.[5]

This came up in the last Thog is CN debate.

At the very least, they can be sent to a hospital that is for all intents and purposes a prison.

EDIT:::::

In that article there is a bit about "Irresistible Impulse"

Irresistible Impulse
There is also an idea of irresistible impulse, which argues that a person may have known an act was illegal but as a result of mental impairment lost control of their actions. This is a more liberal test than that set by the M'Naghten Rules because it applies to defendants who are fully aware of their actions. The defense was first approved in the U.S. in Ohio in 1834[10] and emphasized the inability to control one's actions. Since then it has been adopted by other States, but is open to criticism since there is no way to identify impulses which could be resisted or controlled, and each case must therefore turn upon its own facts. In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty of the felony of malicious wounding when it was argued that an irresistible impulse led her to cut off her husband's penis. The principle has not been applied in the U.K.

I will point out that the Irresistible Impulse defense (which is what it seems you were talking about) is not a universally codified standard.

SECOND EDIT:
Wikipedia article on Irresistible Impulse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_impulse).
The Free Legal Dictionary's entry on Irresistible Impluse (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Irresistible+Impulse).

So there might be quite a few legal systems that don't use it (my own state of California expressly forbids it, it would seem), or at least don't always use it.

====

Anyway, about DnD.... :smallsmile:

I would argue that the existence of "always evil" creatures prove that evil creatures can be innocent. If those creatures could not choose to not commit the crimes they so often do, then they wouldn't be responsible and therefore innocent of them.

I've tried parsing this several times, and I'm coming up with several different ways to interpret this. So since I am a bit unclear on what you mean here, could you please explain the first sentence a bit more? I don't see the connection you are making, tbh.

Though I will say that some races are all-but-compelled* to do Great Evil (Illithids/Demons/Devils/etc) and I don't hear many people excusing their crimes when they commit them. :smallwink:

*< I.e. there are rare rare rare rare "much more than 1 in a million" counter examples>

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-18, 09:07 PM

Billy: The idea that evil can be killed with out justification or proof of some sort of crime is totally wrong.Nope. You're making the mistake I told you not to make: You're looking at a game as if it had any parallels with reality with regards to morality. It does not, because of alignment. Alignment does not exist in real life, and the fact that it does exist in D&D throws everything upside down.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.There is nothing about protecting only life of a certain alignment. Its "innocent life", if the evil creature hasn't commited a crime at what ever threshold it takes to lose its "innocent" status, then it is off the list of killable targets. I would argue that the existance of "always evil" creatures prove that evil creatures can be innocent. If those creatures could not choose to not commit the crimes they so often do, then they wouldn't be responsible and therefore innocent of them.You bolded the correct words, innocent life. An evil aligned being is not innocent. Were it innocent, it would not be evil. Ipso facto. Don't get off track here, "if the evil creature hasn't committed a crime" is a contradiction of terms. I also warned you about dragging evidentiary rules into the discussion, so congratulations about doing both of the things that you shouldn't do in a discussion on D&D alignment. An evil being has committed a crime: It is evil. Again, ipso facto. Being evil in D&D is a measurable attribute, just as being convicted of a crime is a measurable attribute. You either have been, or you have not been, it is a matter of public record. The Goblin is either evil or it is not, and this is also a matter of public record. You don't need to see a Goblin shoplifting or murder someone to know that it deserves to die and be divested of any wealth that it might have. You only need to encounter it in an area where there is no rule of law preventing you from killing it. Say, for example, in the ruins of that old temple that the Priest of Pelor asked you to cleanse of anything evil.
I do not know of any moral system that condems people for things they had no choice about.Sure you do. It's the D&D moral system which attaches an alignment to every creature. If you are evil, you are condemned.

Porthos

2009-09-18, 09:14 PM

Porthos

2009-09-18, 09:18 PM

I do not know of any moral system that condems people for things they had no choice about.

Ah, now you see, you just ruined my entire post I just made by editing your initial post. :smallamused:

So, never mind. :smallwink:

Anyway, I'll leave it up since it actually is somewhat informative about the legal process.

As for your revised statement... Well, that's actually an interesting debate. I know for a fact that various religions have struggled over the Nature of Evil (and in fact the Role of Evil) and have come to some very contradictory conclusions over the spans of their religion.

But since it IS a religious argument, I'll just have to leave it be. :smallwink:

spargel

2009-09-18, 09:53 PM

The_Weirdo

2009-09-19, 01:06 AM

That's not exactly what is going with the goblins that the SG is targetting, you know.

Well, the gods that had one paladin strike a defenseless goblin child in the eye and then try to kill him - all with a very "natural" face - didn't seem to mind the SG attacking noncombatants. So, target or not, they weren't only acceptable losses, they were less than an afterthought. The guy did not fall (well, except for dead). And his last words were actually in reference to the gods. You know. The LG gods that don't seem to give a crap about targeting noncombatant children, as long as they're green and have pointy teeth. And on the "evil" issue? Goblins are "usually" evil. No paladin used any Detection abilities. Indeed, the order was to slaughter the village wholesale.

Porthos

2009-09-19, 01:26 AM

Well, the gods that had one paladin strike a defenseless goblin child in the eye and then try to kill him - all with a very "natural" face - didn't seem to mind the SG attacking noncombatants. So, target or not, they weren't only acceptable losses, they were less than an afterthought. The guy did not fall (well, except for dead). And his last words were actually in reference to the gods. You know. The LG gods that don't seem to give a crap about targeting noncombatant children, as long as they're green and have pointy teeth.

Again: Don't ask me why he didn't Fall. Only Rich knows the answer. :smalltongue:

Though: "He didn't particularly care about the Immediate Alignment Implications and only cared that it sets up an interesting Karmic Backlash later on" can't be discounted.

Of course, we do have the usual deconstruction of DnD Tropes.

Maybe this was Rich's way of deconstructing what eventually happens to Paladins who are on the cold side of the Orc Baby problem. :smallwink:

Lamech

2009-09-19, 10:29 AM

You bolded the correct words, innocent life. An evil aligned being is not innocent. Were it innocent, it would not be evil. Ipso facto. Don't get off track here, "if the evil creature hasn't committed a crime" is a contradiction of terms. I also warned you about dragging evidentiary rules into the discussion, so congratulations about doing both of the things that you shouldn't do in a discussion on D&D alignment.Innocent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innocent).
Pick your defenition. Innocent is being used as an adjective though...
Defenition 1: If the creature is "always evil", it does not have a choice about commiting what ever actions make it evil. Therefore it is not morally responsible for them, and innocent.
Defenition 2: This would be really wierd. Your allowed to kill anyone who is guilty of certain legal crimes. Redcloak would be able to define say not obeying him as non-innocent, and kill anyone who didn't obey. Regardless if this defenition is used, a evil creature can just be in a lawful evil area and be fine.
Defenition 3: A lemure (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm), lacks any intent or motive being mindless. Therefore this can not be the defenition, otherwise lemures would be innocent. More importantly this defenition doesn't really apply to people but actions... "He involves evil intent or motive" doesn't make sense. Finally, one can be evil with out "evil motive", the alignment system does not care about ones motive. One can be motivated by say love or loyalty and still be evil in DnD.
Defenition 4: Note the present tense here. If a evil demon is not causing physical or moral harm it is innocent.
Defenition 5: N/A, it isn't specified what it would be devoid of.
Defenition 6: A stuipid evil creature could qualify for this. Belkar for example. And more importantly a smart good one wouldn't. You really want to use this defenition?
Defenition 7: See 6.

Personally I like number 1 the best. It is the most common and should probably be assumed. It also doesn't get the system which you claim DnD is. And even if you pick a a different one, my interperation is just as correct.

An evil being has committed a crime: It is evil. Again, ipso facto. Being evil in D&D is a measurable attribute, just as being convicted of a crime is a measurable attribute. You either have been, or you have not been, it is a matter of public record. The Goblin is either evil or it is not, and this is also a matter of public record. You don't need to see a Goblin shoplifting or murder someone to know that it deserves to die and be divested of any wealth that it might have. You only need to encounter it in an area where there is no rule of law preventing you from killing it. Say, for example, in the ruins of that old temple that the Priest of Pelor asked you to cleanse of anything evil. Sure you do. It's the D&D moral system which attaches an alignment to every creature. If you are evil, you are condemned.No if you are non-innocent you are condemed.

Kirby

2009-09-19, 11:00 AM

Beker actually once said:"Well I figured we Would just wander around,kill some sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we dont." (I didnt look at the whole thread, just in case someone had already said that)

Kish

2009-09-19, 11:59 AM

The Goblin is either evil or it is not, and this is also a matter of public record. You don't need to see a Goblin shoplifting or murder someone to know that it deserves to die and be divested of any wealth that it might have.

That would be true, in a game where goblins were Always Evil instead of Usually Neutral Evil, and "Always" was supposed to literally mean the dictionary meaning of "Always."

So, again...in a game that kind of sort of vaguely resembled D&D.

The_Weirdo

2009-09-19, 03:46 PM

Belkar actually once said:"Well I figured we Would just wander around,kill some sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we dont." (I didnt look at the whole thread, just in case someone had already said that)

Indeed. Belkar said that. You know. The psycho.

Carnivorous M.

2009-09-19, 03:53 PM

O-Chul. Horrible torture.

That is all.

FujinAkari

2009-09-19, 04:31 PM

The LG gods that don't seem to give a crap about targeting noncombatant children, as long as they're green and have pointy teeth.

Them being green and having pointy teeth has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. The Sapphire Guard only responds to direct threats to the safety of the gates (and, implicitly, the future existence of the entire planet.) The bearer of the crimson mantle was such a threat and, as the crimson mantle bestows its power to -any- Goblin who wears it, nearby goblins are also a threat.

Was it right? Of course not, but you are dishonestly claiming that the Sapphire Guard routinely goes on goblin-slashing parties when they explicitly do not.

Kish

2009-09-19, 04:48 PM

The Sapphire Guard only responds to direct threats to the safety of the gates (and, implicitly, the future existence of the entire planet.)
And, according to Shojo, anyone having knowledge of the existence of the gates.

Gift Jeraff

2009-09-19, 05:33 PM

The way I see it, Redcloak and Right-Eye were Neutral for most of SoD. But when Right-Eye decided to give up on the Plan and Redcloak continued his alliance with Xykon, the former took a turn towards Good (and I'd say he was definitely good by the time he got married) while the latter took a turn for the worse... He's most definitely evil now, but I hope that he gets a Redemption Equals Death (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath) moment and Jirix gets to carry on the dream of all humanoids gaining equality without using an existence-eating monstrosity or sociopathic lich.

FujinAkari

2009-09-19, 05:41 PM

And, according to Shojo, anyone having knowledge of the existence of the gates.

Where did he say that?

I only remember this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html) where they wipe out all who threaten the gates. In the process, they purged public record of the gates, but I see no indication that they -killed people- for being aware of them.

Kish

2009-09-19, 05:49 PM

Oh, you're right. He only mentioned burning books and talked about "all who would threaten the Azure City gate, no matter how far removed geographically," not burning people for having knowledge.

Porthos

2009-09-19, 06:43 PM

not burning people for having knowledge.

I believe the exact phrase used to defend the fact that talking about this was a Captial Crime was:

You didn't think that a Lawful Good government automatically meant Free Speech, did you? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0272.html)

Of course that's a whole nudder argument in and of itself. :smallwink:

Conuly

2009-09-19, 10:03 PM

Indeed. Belkar said that. You know. The psycho.

He got more argument when he started killing rats for XP.

The_Weirdo

2009-09-20, 12:09 AM

Them being green and having pointy teeth has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. The Sapphire Guard only responds to direct threats to the safety of the gates (and, implicitly, the future existence of the entire planet.) The bearer of the crimson mantle was such a threat and, as the crimson mantle bestows its power to -any- Goblin who wears it, nearby goblins are also a threat.

Was it right? Of course not, but you are dishonestly claiming that the Sapphire Guard routinely goes on goblin-slashing parties when they explicitly do not.

Then, they should have killed said bearer and ONLY said bearer, plus MAYBE the combatants who attacked them. Then they should take the mantle and get out. As opposed to - and I repeat - attacking people who are visibly non-combatants, and - somehow, ask me not how - retaining Paladinhood nonetheless.

The Extinguisher

2009-09-20, 01:31 AM

Then, they should have killed said bearer and ONLY said bearer, plus MAYBE the combatants who attacked them. Then they should take the mantle and get out. As opposed to - and I repeat - attacking people who are visibly non-combatants, and - somehow, ask me not how - retaining Paladinhood nonetheless.

It's also entirely possible that they couldn't touch the Mantle. It is, after all, an evil artifact made for goblins.

I'm sure that would go over well though. "Don't mind us, we're just here to kill your spiritual leader and steal your most important object and be on our way."

The_Weirdo

2009-09-20, 01:56 AM

It's also entirely possible that they couldn't touch the Mantle. It is, after all, an evil artifact made for goblins.

I'm sure that would go over well though. "Don't mind us, we're just here to kill your spiritual leader and steal your most important object and be on our way."

Again: Combatants. That's not "don't mind us", that's "Kill X, steal the stuff, retreat".

The Extinguisher

2009-09-20, 01:58 AM

Again: Combatants. That's not "don't mind us", that's "Kill X, steal the stuff, retreat".

I'm still going with the idea that it's kill them pretty horribly dead if they tried to pick it up/move it.

Evil artifacts tend to do that to good guys.

Lamech

2009-09-20, 09:16 AM

I'm still going with the idea that it's kill them pretty horribly dead if they tried to pick it up/move it.
Then reverse gravity it into the sky, then catch it in a bag of holding. Destroy the bag. Gone forever. And no, doesn't have the power to kill them all at range, otherwise the paladin attack would have been wiped out.

Them being green and having pointy teeth has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. The Sapphire Guard only responds to direct threats to the safety of the gates (and, implicitly, the future existence of the entire planet.) The bearer of the crimson mantle was such a threat and, as the crimson mantle bestows its power to -any- Goblin who wears it, nearby goblins are also a threat.Really? Bearing the Crimsion Mantle is proof of wanting to destroy the world? Remember when Redcloak gave up is quest for Right-Eye's village. (You know the one that everyone likes to use as an example for the "right way" to do things.) The paladins would have attacked that perfectly peaceful village as well. So no BotCM is not nessecerly a threat to the world. So killing everyone in a village that may or may not be a threat to existance? Unless paladins normally do that to human villages, I'm saying the reasons have something to do with green skin and pointy teeth.

Nor have the paladins used magic to figure out if what the BotCM was plotting; they believe that the BotCM was plotting to destroy the world. Which is untrue.

David Argall

2009-09-20, 01:35 PM

Sod
I'm still going with the idea that it's kill them pretty horribly dead if they tried to pick it up/move it.

Evil artifacts tend to do that to good guys.
This does not explain why they just left the Mantle there. If it was known to be such a powerful item, at least leaving a guard on it was an obvious tactic. The more likely explanation was that they deemed it simply a uniform, of no real importance. They could just leave it unguarded because it didn't seem to make much difference if somebody did take it.

The_Weirdo

2009-09-20, 02:26 PM

Sod

Uhm, suggestion: Capitalize the D, lest people think you're an Englishman trying to insult someone.

veti

2009-09-20, 03:59 PM

It's also entirely possible that they couldn't touch the Mantle. It is, after all, an evil artifact made for goblins.

Conceivable, but the paladins had casters with them - they could surely have worked out some way to either remove it or destroy it. Indeed, if it's so dangerous, that's surely their duty.

I'm sure that would go over well though. "Don't mind us, we're just here to kill your spiritual leader and steal your most important object and be on our way."

As opposed to "Die scum"? I'd call that a very enlightened intervention. It's like the difference between disarming a criminal, and shooting him stone dead. Either way he's not going to be happy about it, but there's still a qualitative difference there.

The Extinguisher

2009-09-20, 04:56 PM

Sod
This does not explain why they just left the Mantle there. If it was known to be such a powerful item, at least leaving a guard on it was an obvious tactic. The more likely explanation was that they deemed it simply a uniform, of no real importance. They could just leave it unguarded because it didn't seem to make much difference if somebody did take it.

Which I guess reinforces my point even more.

Now they don't even know what the Mantle means. But rather, they do know that killing the mantle bearer doesn't stop the threat of the Dark One.

veti

2009-09-20, 05:32 PM

I think it might not have worked so well if he wasn't, in fact, unlawfully attacking somebody who wasn't able to fight back.

That might be a more convincing argument if any of the adventurers had paused, even for a moment, to look at the situation before diving on the kobold. Or even if they had, if they'd had any way of knowing that Belkar, despite being armed to the teeth, "wasn't able to fight back".

Would you actually support a real-life war because one country has decided that the only way it's going to advance economically was through military force?

We can't say that there was no other way to improve the situation for the goblins, because we've never seen them try. Getting respect for goblin rights would have been a nice way to start.

SOD As far as we know, that's all the Dark One did. According to Redcloak's account - which may not be accurate, but it's the only one we've got - he raised an army, then went to negotiate. He didn't lead any actual war at all.

It's sometimes said that Redcloak is not necessarily telling the truth about this part of the story. But it's the only account we've got, so there's no evidence that it's not absolutely true.

Plenty of people have, historically, thought a lot of things that are pretty unambiguously evil. Once again, try applying this to real life for a moment instead of accepting it because of a sympathetic POV-

If Canadian agents assassinated the US president (after he threatened to invade them, no less), would that justify the US unleashing it's full nuclear arsenal against Canada? That's the kind of response we're dealing with here.

That's perhaps the most unbalanced analogy I've ever seen.

If Canada were vastly militarily superior to the US; if it had been ruthlessly oppressing the US for as long as anyone could remember; if US were economically and politically the underdog, and the existence of nukes was a closely-guarded secret, and the consequences of using them were not at all well known... then you'd have something like a similar case.

Also, waging war as a distraction is just as evil as waging war for direct conquest.

Never denied it. But just because Redcloak is evil, it doesn't follow that he has no moral case at all.

I've already laid it out. You go to negotiate, and you ask for peace instead of other people's stuff. Not being at war is a pretty good start for raising your stakes in life and trying to build a civilization.

Have you ever tried to negotiate with nothing at all? It's like playing poker with no cards. SOD The Dark One didn't start the war, all he did was build the goblin races into a coherent nation. It was the human nations who stabbed the first thrust.

You're really stretching credulity with this "worshipers of an evil, destructive god who preaches subjugation of the other races were the poor innocent victims of racism" line of argument. They weren't killed because they were goblins, they were killed because they were supporting the BotCM.

SOD The goblins neither talked about, nor tried to achieve, any "subjugation of other races". Even the previous BotCM, as far as we can see, was interested in nothing more than living a quiet life and helping goblins to achieve a measure of peace and prosperity, a very long way away from Azure City.

Redcloak's mission is only partly about the Dark One's agenda - there is also, quite explicitly, a dimension of personal revenge for what happened to his family. He's evil, sure, and I've never disputed that - but it's neither the Monster Manual nor the Crimson Mantle nor the Dark One that made him so - it's the Sapphire Guard.

Lamech

2009-09-21, 09:37 AM

Which I guess reinforces my point even more.

Now they don't even know what the Mantle means. But rather, they do know that killing the mantle bearer doesn't stop the threat of the Dark One.
Which I guess just reenforces my point even more.

They would have to kill every goblin in existance, to "end the threat"... which means they were killing them for their pointy teeth and green skin. But hey, nothing like a little genocide. I'm so glad that I got someone to agree with me that the Sapphire guard was a genocidal group. :smallsmile:

T.Titan

2009-09-21, 10:43 AM

Nope. You're making the mistake I told you not to make: You're looking at a game as if it had any parallels with reality with regards to morality. It does not, because of alignment. Alignment does not exist in real life, and the fact that it does exist in D&D throws everything upside down.

No, you're wrong.... what doesn't exist in real life is a sure fire way to determine someone as evil etc.... and theres the fact that the extremes are really rare in real life, but class requirements in the game.

As for Redcloak, if he wasn't a goblin then he might have qualified as Good once, but went neutral and maybe beyond while serving under Xykon, and definitely crossed the moral even horizon when he killed you know who.

Cleverdan22

2009-09-21, 02:09 PM

Didn't we have this thread like six months ago or something? I think it went about as well as it is now. Ah. Here it is: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112285. Four months. Whatever.

I don't know, I feel that his alignment should definitely not be good. His actions in the online comic alone have not exactly painted a purely sympathetic face on him. Sometimes, sure, but not all the time. This is brought to light even more in SoD:
In the end, Right-Eye gets the character development, so to speak. He realized long ago that working under Xykon was wrong, and following the Plan was a terrible idea. Attempting to get a foothold on the Plan alone cost thousands of lives, goblin and otherwise. Redcloak is only sticking with the plan now to show that those lives cost were not his fault, and is willing to kill his own brother in order to keep up the illusion that he is doing good (Well, evil, I guess. Good never really entered the picture) for his people.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-21, 03:04 PM

@ Billy Bob.

However I would point out that Being Evil isn't a Death Sentence. And I really doubt you can find a single sentence in ANY edition of DnD that explicitly states otherwise*. After all, a person who steals bread might very well be evil. But in very few societies would they be killed outright.Porthos, the entire game is about wandering out of a civilized area, kicking in a door, killing evil things you find behind that door, and taking their wealth for your own. Quite often at the demand or request of some authority or mentor or person who needs saving or otherwise good cause.

The game can be much, much more than that, of course. But for the most part this is the distilled essence of D&D.

Regarding "very few societies" killing a bread thief, I refer you back to my prior posts concerning how the force of law in D&D acts to restrict the wholesale killing of evil beings. If the law of the town/village/city/whatever says that stealing bread does not bring death, then it does not. However, if that law endorses killing bread thieves, then it can be done. And at that point alignment has very little to do with the issue, other than to start a endless debate over whether someone who steals a loaf of bread as a survival mechanism should be of an evil alignment in a D&D fantasy land. And then the real world modern morality gets dragged into the issue yet again...

There's a little bit of a problem when your alignments are given to you when you're born.And thus the inevitable return of the "orc baby" issue...

David Argall

2009-09-21, 03:15 PM

Which I guess reinforces my point even more.

Now they don't even know what the Mantle means. But rather, they do know that killing the mantle bearer doesn't stop the threat of the Dark One.
Well, they do hamper the threat. The paladins likely view this much like cops view crime. Eliminating all the threats/crime is simply impossible. One simply has to keep it under control. So killing the mantle bearer every few years may be a workable policy.
So no, their ignorance here does not lead to a wider policy of goblin slaughter.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-21, 03:51 PM

Include the definition, it makes things a lot more clear.

Pick your defenition. Innocent is being used as an adjective though...
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
Defenition 1: If the creature is "always evil", it does not have a choice about commiting what ever actions make it evil. Therefore it is not morally responsible for them, and innocent.Wrong. Evil is anathema to innocence, choice is not relevant. An evil being may not be innocent, or they would not be evil.

2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
Defenition 2: This would be really wierd. Your allowed to kill anyone who is guilty of certain legal crimes. Redcloak would be able to define say not obeying him as non-innocent, and kill anyone who didn't obey. Regardless if this defenition is used, a evil creature can just be in a lawful evil area and be fine.If by "fine" you mean able to rely upon the rule of law to prevent assault, granted. This is how culture works, by suborning the natural impulses of the individuals to a common set of rules/laws. In this case an evil being can be declared to be "innocent by reason of law" if no specific crime may be attributed to them. The ease of magic in D&D may make this a hard thing to conceal, but it can be attempted.

3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.Defenition 3: A lemure (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm), lacks any intent or motive being mindless. Therefore this can not be the defenition, otherwise lemures would be innocent. More importantly this defenition doesn't really apply to people but actions... "He involves evil intent or motive" doesn't make sense. Finally, one can be evil with out "evil motive", the alignment system does not care about ones motive. One can be motivated by say love or loyalty and still be evil in DnD.One can not be evil without having evil motive. Or one would not be evil. The alignment system does not care so much as it categorizes. You have evil motive? Then you are evil. Citing the Lemure snippet is not going to neatly wrap up any questions on alignment just as citing any number of other quotations, many contradictory, illogical, or poorly written snippets could.

4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.Defenition 4: Note the present tense here. If a evil demon is not causing physical or moral harm it is innocent.That's a nice stretch. If the present tense rules then no one would ever be found guilty in a court of law, would they? Defending lawyer "You honor, my client fully admits to having poisoned the patrons of his restaurant. However, today he is merely sitting in a court of law, and so clearly his present state is innocence. I move to dismiss." A mass murderer who takes a break from killing to enjoy a beer is suddenly innocent? Does the time frame matter? Has the blood from his victims coagulated yet, and if not then he is still evil, but if so now he is innocent? You amuse me. :smallbiggrin:

5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.Defenition 5: N/A, it isn't specified what it would be devoid of.Yes, it does specify. It even gives an example: Innocent of merit. AKA Devoid of merit. But still N/A.

6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.Defenition 6: A stuipid evil creature could qualify for this. Belkar for example. And more importantly a smart good one wouldn't. You really want to use this defenition?No, I don't. Because it can not apply. A stupid evil creature is still an evil creature. Being stupid doesn't change your alignment in D&D.

7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.Defenition 7: See 6.Indeed, see 6.

Personally I like number 1 the best. It is the most common and should probably be assumed. It also doesn't get the system which you claim DnD is. And even if you pick a a different one, my interperation is just as correct.

No if you are non-innocent you are condemed.You've forgotten the single most important and overriding consideration: Is the creature evil? Try to let this sink in, and fully grasp the implications: This is a measurable attribute in D&D. Were it a measurable attribute in our world, you'd see a lot of different laws, different definitions, and different evidentiary rules. Because a simple Detect Evil could be used to settle a great many questions that logically require more strict evidence or witness reports in our world.

I'll take Definition 8, which is included in the D&D dictionary in all languages: You are innocent if you are not evil and have committed no crime. You may be innocent if you are not evil, but you may not be innocent if you are evil, or you would not be evil. You may not be innocent of a particular crime and still be non-evil, presuming that it is a minor crime. But you can not be both evil and innocent. These are contradictory states of being.

This makes so much more sense than any of the contortion you just went through to try to make a Lemure an innocent, or Belkar non-evil, and it also makes D&D playable as written and as most groups play it.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-21, 04:55 PM

That would be true, in a game where goblins were Always Evil instead of Usually Neutral Evil, and "Always" was supposed to literally mean the dictionary meaning of "Always."

So, again...in a game that kind of sort of vaguely resembled D&D.Perhaps we simply have an irreconcilable difference when it comes to how we play D&D. "Sort of vaguely", like perhaps some lame GM who decides to fling endless morality challenges at his players until they are fallen Paladins or outcast by their good churches or are no longer welcome in otherwise friendly towns, perhaps? Does that sound like a lot of fun?

How do you, Kish, answer the orc baby issue? Now that you and your group of brave adventurers have defeated the marauding orc horde at the request of the good mayor of Pudlothia, what do you do with the remaining non-combatant orcs? Do you slaughter all those "innocents" (who are evil, remember), or do you clutch them to your bosom and refuse to allow anyone to do harm to them, crying out that they must be saved? And then what? You're now the proud guardian of 20 orcs from, say, infancy through just under the size where they would have been run through by your Fighter friend since they would have been armed and trying to kill him. What exactly do you do with them? Leave them to fend for themselves in the wilderness? Can't do that, they would fall prey to wild animals, or perhaps evil humanoids. Like, say, their parents whom you just helped to wipe out. So you drag them back to Pudlothia, where they will no doubt receive a rather cool welcome as the spawn of the evil marauding orc horde the good citizens of Pudlothia asked you to rid them of. Understanding from the grumbles and the sideways glances that leaving the "kids" with a bunch of hardscrabble farmers who are missing a few members of their community due to the marauding orcs, what do you do now? You can't leave the "kids" in the town, they won't survive the night without you to ensure their good treatment. None of the villagers is offering to foster them, they'd rather hold their heads under water until they stopped moving. And so you retire from adventuring and become the head of your own orc orphanage. It's only a few years later that you're dead. Orcs grow up fast, and you're killed in your sleep by the same evil orcs you decided just had to be saved from the fate intended for them by everyone else but you. Oh, you tried to raise them with your values, but they were evil. And the older ones remembered you and your friends cutting down all of their parents and uprooting their entire existence. The younger ones were taught by the older ones, and one day it was right for them to strike back at the person who had killed their parents, kidnapped them, and imprisoned them against their will. Congratulations!

Aldrakan

2009-09-21, 05:07 PM

Well that was an ambitiously extreme strawman argument.

Lamech

2009-09-21, 05:27 PM

Include the definition, it makes things a lot more clear. Thats kind of exactly what I did...:smallconfused:

Wrong. Evil is anathema to innocence, choice is not relevant. An evil being may not be innocent, or they would not be evil.Now your simply claiming evil=non-innocent with out support. (I'm turning into David Argall, is this a good thing?) Again, if a creature does not have a choice about being evil, it doesn't have a choice about the actions or thoughts that make it evil. I know of no moral system that holds people sinful for actions that they did not commit. (Barring ones that hold everyone sinful, but then angels just kill everyone.) Therefore using the worlds moral systems we see that "always evil" creatures can be innocent.

If by "fine" you mean able to rely upon the rule of law to prevent assault, granted. This is how culture works, by suborning the natural impulses of the individuals to a common set of rules/laws. In this case an evil being can be declared to be "innocent by reason of law" if no specific crime may be attributed to them. The ease of magic in D&D may make this a hard thing to conceal, but it can be attempted.The evil society would probably define something like... vampires killing and feeding on random humans as okay. Or that enslaving humans is okay. Its a valid interpertion I guess, but it would mean Xykon and Redcloak have become neutral, or possibly good.

One can not be evil without having evil motive. Or one would not be evil. The alignment system does not care so much as it categorizes. You have evil motive? Then you are evil. Citing the Lemure snippet is not going to neatly wrap up any questions on alignment just as citing any number of other quotations, many contradictory, illogical, or poorly written snippets could.One can commit a small evil act with out evil motives right? Roy defrauded the innkeeper. Is he evil now that he has that evil motive? If he did that a lot he would become evil. Ditto with V, she, in the right circumstances, would always have killed commited familacide. (Endangering possible innocents, RAI half-dragons, or RAW dragon-blooded.) Has she always been evil?

That's a nice stretch. If the present tense rules then no one would ever be found guilty in a court of law, would they? Defending lawyer "You honor, my client fully admits to having poisoned the patrons of his restaurant. However, today he is merely sitting in a court of law, and so clearly his present state is innocence. I move to dismiss." A mass murderer who takes a break from killing to enjoy a beer is suddenly innocent? Does the time frame matter? Has the blood from his victims coagulated yet, and if not then he is still evil, but if so now he is innocent? You amuse me. :smallbiggrin:I was pointing out why that would not support your view. I was being thourgh.

,snip

You've forgotten the single most important and overriding consideration: Is the creature evil? Try to let this sink in, and fully grasp the implications: This is a measurable attribute in D&D. Were it a measurable attribute in our world, you'd see a lot of different laws, different definitions, and different evidentiary rules. Because a simple Detect Evil could be used to settle a great many questions that logically require more strict evidence or witness reports in our world.

I'll take Definition 8, which is included in the D&D dictionary in all languages: You are innocent if you are not evil and have committed no crime. You may be innocent if you are not evil, but you may not be innocent if you are evil, or you would not be evil. You may not be innocent of a particular crime and still be non-evil, presuming that it is a minor crime. But you can not be both evil and innocent. These are contradictory states of being.

This makes so much more sense than any of the contortion you just went through to try to make a Lemure an innocent, or Belkar non-evil, and it also makes D&D playable as written and as most groups play it.
You can't just change the defenition. If they meant innocent=evil wizards could have done it. They didn't. Also thought experiment, what if a sleeping or otherwise helpless person has there alignment magically switched to evil? They won't have commited any moral wrong. And yes using the "evil motive" defenition kind of makes motiveless creatures innocent.

You can't leave the "kids" in the town, they won't survive the night without you to ensure their good treatment. None of the villagers is offering to foster them, they'd rather hold their heads under water until they stopped moving. And so you retire from adventuring and become the head of your own orc orphanage. It's only a few years later that you're dead. Orcs grow up fast, and you're killed in your sleep by the same evil orcs you decided just had to be saved from the fate intended for them by everyone else but you. Oh, you tried to raise them with your values, but they were evil. And the older ones remembered you and your friends cutting down all of their parents and uprooting their entire existence. The younger ones were taught by the older ones, and one day it was right for them to strike back at the person who had killed their parents, kidnapped them, and imprisoned them against their will. Congratulations! If the villagers kill the innocent kids, they pretty much have moved themselves from the "innocent" group to the "non-innocent" group. Clearly you kill everyone resposible the next time you stop back in town. As you have pointed out divinations make it easy to determine if they are responsible or not.

waterpenguin43

2009-09-21, 05:37 PM

His intentions are evil, using Snarl to empower his god and send him way above the others, possibly even destroying existence with it except for goblns, is evil. Though he does care about goblin wellfare, he is still evil.

veti

2009-09-21, 06:43 PM

Perhaps we simply have an irreconcilable difference when it comes to how we play D&D. "Sort of vaguely", like perhaps some lame GM who decides to fling endless morality challenges at his players until they are fallen Paladins or outcast by their good churches or are no longer welcome in otherwise friendly towns, perhaps? Does that sound like a lot of fun?

Actually, yes. If "playing D&D" means following some railroad plot to save the world from this week's big bad, then you can keep it. Personally I grew out of that roundabout the time "Unearthed Arcana" came out.

Orc babies - hell, I've played in a party with characters who made it their business to start orphanages for babies like that, and I'm here to tell you, it was a lot of fun dealing with those townsfolk, who were every bit as sceptical as you describe. And the game was still D&D.

If you can't play the alignment, then don't try to be a paladin in the first place. It's not meant to be easy.

One can not be evil without having evil motive. Or one would not be evil. The alignment system does not care so much as it categorizes. You have evil motive? Then you are evil. Citing the Lemure snippet is not going to neatly wrap up any questions on alignment just as citing any number of other quotations, many contradictory, illogical, or poorly written snippets could.

Thank you for describing everything I despise about the D&D alignment system. What you've just described is a tautology: "You're evil because you're evil. It makes no difference what you did, why you did it or who you did it to - all that matters is what's written on your character sheet, that's all I need to know about you."

Of course it's trivially easy to construct a morality like that, based purely on "Them and Us". For most of human history it's been the majority way of looking at the world. Where D&D goes wrong is in trying to square it with modern (post-1945) morality, in which we actually regard Them as individual sentient beings, over whom We don't automatically have any natural superiority or innate right to judge, use and abuse however we wish.

Kish

2009-09-21, 07:04 PM

Perhaps we simply have an irreconcilable difference when it comes to how we play D&D.

You and I? Definitely. You and the actual D&D books? Again, definitely.

Goblins being used as villains in various D&D materials is as much of an argument for your all-goblins-should-be-killed-on-sight position as humans being used as villains in various D&D materials would be an argument that all humans should be killed on sight. Your usual style is to insist that any example of a member of a "usually evil" or "often evil" race being used as a villain provides support for your position and invalidates any and all explicit racial-morality-isn't-absolute or killing-orc-noncombatants-is-monstrously-evil statements presented in D&D materials, even if they're made by the same writer or in the same book. It doesn't.

"Sort of vaguely", like perhaps some lame GM who decides to fling endless morality challenges at his players until they are fallen Paladins or outcast by their good churches or are no longer welcome in otherwise friendly towns, perhaps? Does that sound like a lot of fun?

I believe the GNS theory summary thread is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125196). The viewpoint that a D&D game must either be morally simplistic to the point of, "It has green skin, kill it!" or be about testing the characters to destruction, has been treated unkindly there; you should redress that.

David Argall

2009-09-21, 08:18 PM

Evil is anathema to innocence, choice is not relevant. An evil being may not be innocent, or they would not be evil.

A standard definition of "innocent" is "did not do this crime", and that is the definition generally used in D&D, or in morality in general for that matter. So our evil being is frequently innocent, even if he wishes he were not.

included in the D&D dictionary in all languages: You are innocent if you are not evil and have committed no crime. You may be innocent if you are not evil, but you may not be innocent if you are evil, or you would not be evil.

This simply does not conform to reality. Children are defined as innocent, and they are evil little greed machines. Their better instincts kick in later. [Give a lass of perhaps 7 a doll and she cuddles it. Give her one at 5 and she is more likely to clobber her brother with it.]

it also makes D&D playable as written and as most groups play it.
A lot of groups do play a simplistic "see the monster and kill it" game, but the rules in no way approve of killing 1/3 of society.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-25, 05:24 PM

You can't just change the defenition. If they meant innocent=evil wizards could have done it.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I didn't say innocent=evil, you did. I said that innocent can not = evil. And the definition we use in the real world surely does require a change when it is looked at in a setting where evil is not just a vague concept or a label but instead is a measurable quality, present or not present, of every being.
If the villagers kill the innocent kids, they pretty much have moved themselves from the "innocent" group to the "non-innocent" group.The problem with that statement is that when we look around we don't see any "innocent kids." Stop using real world morality to insist that youth makes a person an innocent. Those young orcs are not innocent, they are evil. This is D&D, and evil is measurable.

You're fond of using the dictionary definition of innocent to argue your side. So allow me the same:

e⋅vil /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-vuhl]
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.And the above doesn't even go far enough in a world where evil is a measurable attribute. But far enough for this discussion.

So tell me: Orc babies are evil, which we can measure them to be, and thus they have some or all of the qualities above. Exactly what part of the above gives them any claim at all to innocence? As I have said before, the terms are mutually exclusive. More than that, the word "innocence" in D&D as in real life is merely a vague concept or a label, while the word "evil" in D&D is a measurable attribute, an absolute. You can not dispel the validity of something which is measurable with a mere concept.

That would be like saying "That is not water, it is pretty." Well, it is water, and you think that it is pretty. The next person may not think it is pretty, but will have to agree that it is water as well. Get it? In D&D land evil is not a subjective quality, it is an objective reality. Look up the words "subjective" and "objective" to help you understand. It may be a difficult concept to swallow, but if you refuse to accept it then you are refusing to accept the alignment system. And that's fine if you want to play that way, but that's not how the game was written. D&D as written has black and white morality, it has to because of the alignment system which is a core element of the entire game. Your house ruled game that is largely based on D&D can have as many shades of gray as you and your group cares to play with.

Clearly you kill everyone resposible the next time you stop back in town. As you have pointed out divinations make it easy to determine if they are responsible or not.Being responsible for killing evil beings whose evil parents were responsible for killing several of your friends, family, and neighbors is not an evil act. Letting those evil beings grow and flourish to the point where they are capable of hurting others, however, might be seen as an evil act. Killing those townsfolk for killing evil would be an evil act. Congratulations on your alignment change to evil, now it makes a lot more sense: You wish to raise up an orc army.

A lot of groups do play a simplistic "see the monster and kill it" game, but the rules in no way approve of killing 1/3 of society.First off, you need to re-read my points on Law being a constraint on the wholesale slaughter of evil beings. This adds the complexity of not being able to kill your neighbor just because you're a Paladin and he detects as evil. Second, there is nothing at all in D&D which suggests that 1/3 of "society" is evil. Making that assertion just because 1/3 of the alignments are evil is a fallacy.

Lamech

2009-09-25, 06:22 PM

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I didn't say innocent=evil, you did. I said that innocent can not = evil. And the definition we use in the real world surely does require a change when it is looked at in a setting where evil is not just a vague concept or a label but instead is a measurable quality, present or not present, of every being.The problem with that statement is that when we look around we don't see any "innocent kids." Stop using real world morality to insist that youth makes a person an innocent. Those young orcs are not innocent, they are evil. This is D&D, and evil is measurable. I'm sorry add a "non" before innocent. If wizards wanted non-innocent=evil they could have stated it.

The problem with that statement is that when we look around we don't see any "innocent kids." Stop using real world morality to insist that youth makes a person an innocent. Those young orcs are not innocent, they are evil. This is D&D, and evil is measurable. Orcs are not 100% evil so... umm... yeah not all the orcs are evil. And I see nothing anywhere claiming usally evil races are 100% non-innocent.

You're fond of using the dictionary definition of innocent to argue your side. So allow me the same:Guess what? Good and Evil have a DnD defenition. So we use those. Similar to how we use the DnD defenition of gravity. Innocent does not, so we use the real world defenition. Otherwise your just making up a defenition to suit you.

So tell me: Orc babies are evil, which we can measure them to be, and thus they have some or all of the qualities above. Exactly what part of the above gives them any claim at all to innocence? As I have said before, the terms are mutually exclusive. Not having commited any sufficient sin? You know, the thing that generally makes people innocent. The same standards for losing innocence apply to everyone good or evil.

More than that, the word "innocence" in D&D as in real life is merely a vague concept or a label, while the word "evil" in D&D is a measurable attribute, an absolute. You can not dispel the validity of something which is measurable with a mere concept.
I'm failing to see the point here. Yes evil is measurable. Innocence is not. They are differant things. In the real world innocence is a concept and electrical charge is not. The fact that electrical charge is measurable does not invalidate the concept of innocence because they are differant things. Again according to the rules you can't destroy innocent life, with out it being an evil act. Notice the complete lack of anything about being evil? One must protect innocent life to be good. Nothing in there about only protecting non-evil innocent life.

That would be like saying "That is not water, it is pretty." Well, it is water, and you think that it is pretty. The next person may not think it is pretty, but will have to agree that it is water as well. Get it? In D&D land evil is not a subjective quality, it is an objective reality. Look up the words "subjective" and "objective" to help you understand. It may be a difficult concept to swallow, but if you refuse to accept it then you are refusing to accept the alignment system. And that's fine if you want to play that way, but that's not how the game was written. D&D as written has black and white morality, it has to because of the alignment system which is a core element of the entire game. Your house ruled game that is largely based on D&D can have as many shades of gray as you and your group cares to play with.
In the alignment system some creatures are evil and some are good. And while it good strongly correlates with innocent, and evil with not, they are not the same. There is nothing that says they are, if wizards wanted it, they would have needed to add one sentence. "Evil creatures are never innocent." They didn't. Only killing non-innocents is sanctioned by the alignment system, and then whatever crimes the orcs have commited, one can apply the same standards to a human child. Can you find one line that says that killing an being evil strips one of innocence? Repeatedly asserting they are is not evidence.

Being responsible for killing evil beings whose evil parents were responsible for killing several of your friends, family, and neighbors is not an evil act. Letting those evil beings grow and flourish to the point where they are capable of hurting others, however, might be seen as an evil act. Killing those townsfolk for killing evil would be an evil act. Congratulations on your alignment change to evil, now it makes a lot more sense: You wish to raise up an orc army.
... The bolded part is completely meaningless. The actions of the parents do not transfer to the childern. Secondly I doubt that the orc childern have had the ablity to do much more than be bullies, assult maybe and petty theft.
Tangent: If being a bully is enough for loss of innocence dismember every bully in the city in the most horrible manner possible. Then when the parents try to stop you do the same to them if they use force. (Remember assult costs you innocence.) See problem solved. I'm pretty sure after that little demonstration no one will cross you.
Anyway that doesn't actually matter since not every orc child will be evil regardless, in fact many of them will fall in the catagory where they don't have sufficent reasoning ablity to percieve right and wrong. Note how I specifically mentioned "innocent"?

You can't leave the "kids" in the town, they won't survive the night without you to ensure their good treatment.
The orcs are not "always evil" Just mostly, some will be neutral, and a portion of those innocent. The villagers responsible can still be killed.:smallsmile:

P.S. There is no detect innocent spell. If wizards wanted one they could have added it. Nothing in DnD says "A evil creatures is non-innocent" Thats one of your core tenents right? Please provide some evidence to support it.

Aldrakan

2009-09-26, 01:31 AM

One of the suggested origins for playing monstrous races as good PCs is actually that they were rescued or raised by good npcs. Which is a pretty strong indication that, well to start with the D&D guide disagrees with you on the "saving orc babies leads to them slitting your throat" claim.
Given that and being Usually not Always evil there's really very little evidence that being evil is an inherent orc trait rather than cultural tendency that is assumed to apply to the majority of orc tribes to give players something to fight if they don't want to get into moral questions. But if you are considering them, a person's cultural background is changeable. Especially by say, being raised in a different culture. That'll do it.

Kish

2009-09-26, 10:18 AM

Aldrakan

2009-09-26, 01:23 PM

*cough* Often, actually. Less than 50% Chaotic Evil.

Oh, sorry. Well that just strengthens my argument.

Mystic Muse

2009-09-26, 02:44 PM

Include the definition, it makes things a lot more clear.

Evil is anathema to innocence, choice is not relevant. An evil being may not be innocent, or they would not be evil.

you can have largely evil desires and no good ones. Some would say that makes you evil but if you've never acted on those desires then you are still innocent.

Evil is not necessarily the opposite of innocence and choice is always relevant. If you have no choice (and there's almost always a choice. I can't think of any where there's not.) then you are not evil or good or whatever for committing the deed because you did not have the ability to choose otherwise.

David Argall

2009-09-26, 07:25 PM

First off, you need to re-read my points on Law being a constraint on the wholesale slaughter of evil beings.
There is, properly speaking, no such constraint. Now the law might restrict such slaughter to alternate Tuesdays, and only if the proper paperwork is filled out and filed, but there is nothing in the idea of Law, or Chaos, that forbids or requires killing of certain types.
Killing is a moral issue and thus a matter of Good vs Evil. Law and Chaos merely rule on who and when, and often enough not even on that.

there is nothing at all in D&D which suggests that 1/3 of "society" is evil. Making that assertion just because 1/3 of the alignments are evil is a fallacy.
We have nine alignments and someone here has dug up the comment that humans do not show any bias in alignment, even towards true neutral. While it would be too excessive to rule that that means each alignment gets 11.1111...% of a human population, we do get the conclusion that each alignment does not on average overwhelm any other, and our 3 evil alignments would have about 1/3 the population.

Underground

2009-09-27, 06:24 AM

To be far the average goblin does seem to be rather evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html) in his desires, but thats just because they were made that way by the gods, to justify them being killed. Goblins have free will. Therefore, if they do evil, they deserve punishment.

And even if they wouldnt, they would be evil constructs and need to be destroyed.

So nope, your logic is not applyable.

Shale

2009-09-27, 08:33 AM

you can have largely evil desires and no good ones. Some would say that makes you evil but if you've never acted on those desires then you are still innocent.

This. Being Evil doesn't make you a criminal or murderer, it's committing crimes that does it - any more than being Good means you've automatically fought Evil creatures to the death.

hamishspence

2009-09-27, 09:27 AM

yes, up to a point.

You can't be evil (or at least, Lawful Evil) without commiting some form of acts, accoding to Fiendish Codex 2- since "thinking bad thoughts" is not enough.

But, evil acts can be very minor, and its possible to have an evil alignment while still falling a very long way short of being "deserving of death"

Being horrible to others- bullying and humiliating them (within the bounds of the law) can result in an evil alignment quite easily.

And yet, a person who is "horrible to others" may not have committed "crimes against others"

Lvl45DM!

2009-09-27, 09:50 AM

hamishspence

2009-09-27, 10:16 AM

when it comes to the analogies, with SoD especially, they tend to run the other way- the Sapphire Guard "crusades" look an awful lot like pogroms.

Similarly, casting Inflict Wounds is no more evil (under the actual D&D rules) than casting Fireball- the Inflict spells do not have the Evil descriptor.

Its "channelling negative energy" that is, using "Rebuke Undead" that is an evil act by PHB. Not "Casting spells that manipulate negative energy"

All that said, Redcloak is evil, but the trope "Driven to evil" from Champions of Ruin, is more appropriate than just "Evil Choice"

The Giant, in SoD says that while Xykon is not one of those people driven to evil from what life has forced them to endure:

"Redcloak might be, though."

Does Azure City bear partial culpability for the actions of its paladins? Possibly. It is listed in War & XPs under how it failed to live up to its ideals:

Scratch the surface and you will find a leader who ruled with lies, a paladin who believed herself infallible, and a ruling class who was willing to abandon the common people when push came to shove. Most damning of all, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

Lamech

2009-09-28, 02:31 PM

Dude uses negative energy spells, he rips at the fabric of living beings (but so do all fighters and wizards you say? yeah but using negative energy is different to using fire or steel...its INHERENTLY evil), zombifies people, takes over nations who didnt harm him (What? but Azure city killed his tribe you say? nup that was specifically the paladins so he slaughtered countless innocents and forced more out of their home...evil :D)
bullys the poor MitD tortures a man endlessly, even when he knows its pointless...interrupts a pointless torture session for a pointed torture session
utterly utterly selfish except with regards to other hobgoblin lives kinda cowardly
oh and look what happened to his poor brother
Ok and dammit he got Xykon to talk tactics about attacking an LG bastion full of innocent peopl by sicking acid breathing beetles on hobgoblins
look how he treated Tsukiko the first time he met her!
DUDE
IS
EVIL!
dude admits to being evil, he enjoys it hes just...evil
admittedly sympathetic (nawww poor gobbos) but i mean hes hitler (godwins law) supporting his own race at the detriment of all others. just replace jews with paladins and the SS with undead.
Evil Redcloak...eeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiilllll

Yeah Redcloak has done a lot of evil things. I don't think they were things he was drvien to do. Unless you count the plan which I question...* Of course, his attack on Azure City was justified, retaliation should be expected when you wage genocide. But then he goes and attacks a civillian ship (as far as he knew), he is horrible to an ally just because she is human. And then instead of intergrating the people into the structure of hobgoblin life, he enslaves them. Why!? The hobgoblins were a military structure they would have had to work anyway. He was horrible to the hobgoblins, just because they are hobgoblins.

Redcloak could have led tried the plan. He could have attacked Azure City. He could have been righteous in all this. He wasn't. He could have been good.

*I see good people risking the Snarl getting lose with their destroying of the gates, when evil might get it, and there not actually bothering to attempt to understand what Redcloak plans. Thats being deciding that they can risk the world to stop Redcloak from enslaving everyone. Redcloak has decided to risk the world to keep his people from dying. I see it as favoring Redcloak for morality.

P.S. Casting evil spells is not evil. (Maybe its like BM's hadoken.) Casting negative energy spells is not evil. Channeling negative energy is. Thats it.

hamishspence

2009-09-28, 02:51 PM

Casting evil descriptor spells (according to BoVD) is an evil act (but excusable in small quantities for a very good purpose)

The majority of "negative energy spells" do not have that descriptor though.

However, since "the path of of evil magic leads quickly to corruption" good/neutral guys who start casting evil spells, tend not to remain non-evil for long.

Fiendish Codex 2 lists casting evil spells among the corrupt acts, but it is the least corrupt, ranking as less corrupt than, for example, betraying an ally for personal gain, and less corrupt than murder or most forms of torture.

You could certainly have a non-evil person who casts evil spells, but unless they have some kind of special rule, they tend to progress to Evil.

the Malconvoker in Complete Scoundrel has a special rule: immunity to the "alignment repercussions" of casting evil spells of summoning.

Larkspur

2009-09-28, 03:04 PM

Most damning of all, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.[/I]

The fascinating things one learns from people who actually bought the books...

So all these arguments about how the poor Sapphire Guard just had to exterminate every man, woman and child in Redcloak's village in order to prevent the transmission of the Dark One's evil, evil Plan are utter specious garbage, because in fact the SGs have been exterminating other humanoids who had nothing to do with the Plan.

At the behest of their gods, which rather neatly resolves the no falling debate. Good to know.

Much obliged, hamishspence. :smallamused: Of course, there's no chance this willl actually stop the arguments, but it's nice to be supplied with ammunition by the Giant himself.

@ Lamech:

I agree with most of your points, but the timing of Tsukiko's defection was abysmal. Redcloak was more than justified in refusing to trust her immediately, although obviously the Blade Barrier/Chlorine Elemental trick was a **** move. And it's not like she's been Miss Classy herself. Clearly he started it, but she's not innocent in that feud.

As for not integrating the humans into the new government, my guess would be that along with racism and enslaving the populace being pretty de rigueur for medieval city conquest, the fact that the Azurites are really pissed at the hobgoblins for sacking their city is hampering the integration process. Ideally one would set up some kind of puppet government, but there don't seem to be enough Azurites left for that, and they're mounting an active resistance. It's not obvious what the right thing to do is in this instance, even if Redcloak were trying to do it, which he isn't.

hamishspence

2009-09-28, 03:39 PM

Redcloak did make the claim that the "humanoid races" which, pictured, include goblins and lizardfolk, had been being killed for a while by the humans and others for XP, before the Dark One showed up.

This might be part of what was being referred to.

Also, the goblins may not be the only ones covered by "crusades to destroy all who would threaten the gates" they are the only ones pictured though.

Either way, the implication is that goblins may not be the only victims of the Sapphire Guard, for whatever reason.

We saw the lizardfolk trying to fight them as well in SoD.

They wipe out entire villages, and as we have seen from SoD, this includes small goblin children (noticably smaller than the goblin teenagers in Dungeon Crawling Fools).

David Argall has suggested a few times that the gods have no control over whether the paladins fall or not, and if their gods order them to perform an evil act and they do it, they must Fall, therefore the slaughter of goblin children was not an Evil act.

This does not seem plausible by other D&D sources, or the Giant's general attitude to the acts as decribed in the books, though.

Larkspur

2009-09-28, 10:00 PM

Also, the goblins may not be the only ones covered by "crusades to destroy all who would threaten the gates" they are the only ones pictured though.

No other race has both the knowledge and the incentive, though. The "plane-shift a gate" strategy only works as blackmail, and only then if you're so discontent with the current setup of the work that you're willing to risk an apocalypse. Most of the humanoid races have no patron deity to explain what the gates are good for, and if Tiamat cared enough about the kobolds to risk an apocalypse on their behalf, she'd never have created them in the first place. The goblins seem to be in a pretty unique situation, metaphysically speaking.

David Argall has suggested a few times that the gods have no control over whether the paladins fall or not, and if their gods order them to perform an evil act and they do it, they must Fall, therefore the slaughter of goblin children was not an Evil act.

I think his theory is absurd, myself- the kids are below the age of reason so they have to qualify as innocents, regardless of their alignment- but admittedly this doesn't disprove it. What it does disprove is any speculation that the pogrom was a result of over-enthusiasm on the part of the SGs rather than direct orders from the 12 Gods. So that's worth knowing.

Lvl45DM!

2009-09-28, 11:08 PM

Ok oops about the evil spells thing i guess, in my games good clerics cant cast those spells, and neutral ones usually dont. But yeah you backed me up anyway with the Rebuke undead thing :D
Sure his life might have driven him to evil, waa waa, hes still evil!!
He's a coward who continues doing evil to validate deaths he caused.
Evil.
Azure city had a ruler who rules with lies (dont they all :smallconfused:) ONE crazy paladin and an evil aligned ruling class. But Hinjo, Lien and O-chul outweigh Miko, and the average citizen tend to be forthright and upstanding, as evidenced when most stayed and took on the ENTIRE goblin army. Sure some left, after fighting a death knight! makes them neutral.
And redcloak massacred them. To make him feel better about being evil towards hobgoblins.
Damn the more i think about it the more evil he seems

And lets not forget the months of torture of O-Chul

Nimrod's Son

2009-09-28, 11:33 PM

He was very good to his mother.

Lvl45DM!

2009-09-29, 01:13 AM

And Hitler was lovely to his dogs

Porthos

2009-09-29, 01:15 AM

And Hitler was lovely to his dogs

Yes, I do believe that was where Nimrod's Son was going with that. :smallwink:

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-29, 01:56 PM

Guess what? Good and Evil have a DnD defenition. So we use those. Similar to how we use the DnD defenition of gravity. Innocent does not, so we use the real world defenition. Otherwise your just making up a defenition to suit you.You're not using the D&D definitions of good and evil, or you wouldn't be so confused on this subject. You're using instead a lot of real world morality and trying to impose it upon an imaginary world where things don't work the same because evil is not just a concept, it is a measurable attribute of all beings. I'll post the definition below, maybe it will help you.

I'm failing to see the point here. Yes evil is measurable. Innocence is not. They are differant things. In the real world innocence is a concept and electrical charge is not. The fact that electrical charge is measurable does not invalidate the concept of innocence because they are differant things. Again according to the rules you can't destroy innocent life, with out it being an evil act. Notice the complete lack of anything about being evil? One must protect innocent life to be good. Nothing in there about only protecting non-evil innocent life.You're overlooking the obvious in an attempt to arrive at the answer you prefer. Yes, innocent and evil are different things. But not so different that they have zero implication upon the other. You can be innocent and not be good. You can be good and not be innocent of some specific infraction. You can not be evil and be an innocent. They are contradictory states. Read the definition of evil again, and then answer the question I posed to you when I posted it: What aspect of this definition do you think allows for an evil being to also be innocent? Not "innocent of some crime it didn't commit", but an innocent in the full meaning of that word. They are mutually exclusive states.

Only killing non-innocents is sanctioned by the alignment system, and then whatever crimes the orcs have commited, one can apply the same standards to a human child. Can you find one line that says that killing an being evil strips one of innocence? Repeatedly asserting they are is not evidence.Can you point to one line which states that an evil being is innocent? Since evils can not be innocent, the "killing of non-innocents" you cite as being sanctioned also applies to all evils.

Tangent: If being a bully is enough for loss of innocence dismember every bully in the city in the most horrible manner possible.How many times do I have to point out that law is a restraining factor before you stop trying to use "in the city <blah>" type examples? Most D&D encounters with orcs take place outside of areas where the rule of law is enforced or even present at all. Tangent, indeed.

The orcs are not "always evil" Just mostly, some will be neutral, and a portion of those innocent. The villagers responsible can still be killed.:smallsmile:With the ease of access to minor magics, your argument has no weight. Lets just assume that all the orcs are evil and dispense with the contortions of your "what if" scenarios. Assume if you like that any orc which wasn't evil isn't killed, if that makes you feel better. But be aware that "Often chaotic evil" does pretty much mean "almost always, with the exceptions often being either player characters or notable NPCs."

P.S. There is no detect innocent spell.None is needed. Detect Evil is a 1st level spell and covers the need entirely.

Nothing in DnD says "A evil creatures is non-innocent" Thats one of your core tenents right? Please provide some evidence to support it.I've done so, you just would rather believe otherwise. D&D defines evil, being evil makes being innocent impossible. If you don't care for the dictionary definition, use the D&D definition. It will make no difference, even the most casual reading of the evil alignments makes it clear to anyone who understands the language that beings with those alignments are not innocents.
Here you go:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
So tell me, what part of the above definition even suggests to you that a being who has an evil alignment can possibly be an innocent?

Cleverdan22

2009-09-29, 01:57 PM

Hey. Hey. Everyone. Godwin's Law.

Kish

2009-09-29, 02:02 PM

You're not using the D&D definitions of good and evil, or you wouldn't be so confused on this subject.

...My irony meter just blew up.

BillyJimBoBob, you are not, and have never been, using the D&D definitions of good and evil. You are arguing for a principle which is clearly stated in the 3ed and 3.5ed Player's Handbooks to be a Lawful Evil one. And you are doing so based on claims which you are pulling out of thin air and which contradict the actual D&D books, supported by your asserting that anything in a D&D book or OotS strip which doesn't directly contradict you supports you--"The hobgoblins in this strip are evil, therefore every goblin is born evil and should be killed at birth!" "Confused" is not a word I would apply to anyone in this thread; "idee-fixe," on the other hand, applies very well to you.

Goblins being used as villains in various D&D materials is as much of an argument for your all-goblins-should-be-killed-on-sight position as humans being used as villains in various D&D materials would be an argument that all humans should be killed on sight. Your usual style is to insist that any example of a member of a "usually evil" or "often evil" race being used as a villain provides support for your position and invalidates any and all explicit racial-morality-isn't-absolute or killing-orc-noncombatants-is-monstrously-evil statements presented in D&D materials, even if they're made by the same writer or in the same book. It doesn't.

Hey. Hey. Everyone. Godwin's Law.
I find the tradition associated with Godwin's Law, which states that the person making the comparison loses the debate, ethically problematic as it prevents people from bringing up Hitler where Hitler is actually relevant. On this forum, such a comparison made about another forum member would clearly be extreme flaming and merit an infraction if not an instant ban. However, Redcloak is not a poster on this forum. :smalltongue: So I don't see how Godwin's Law is even involved, and I think analyzing the similarities and differences between him and Hitler could be an interesting discussion.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-29, 02:09 PM

...My irony meter just blew up.

BillyJimBoBob, you are not, and have never been, using the D&D definitions of good and evil.I just posted the definitions above. So answer my question: What part of the above definition even suggests to you that a being who has an evil alignment can possibly be an innocent?

And by the way, I have never, ever done this:

Your usual style is to insist that any example of a member of a "usually evil" or "often evil" race being used as a villain provides support for your position and invalidates any and all explicit racial-morality-isn't-absolute or killing-orc-noncombatants-is-monstrously-evil statements presented in D&D materials, even if they're made by the same writer or in the same book.

Kish

2009-09-29, 02:18 PM

I just posted the definitions above.

You did. It's a great pity you're not actually using those definitions. The definition (singular) your assertions consistently support goes:
Evil: Born of a race which can't be played and exists to be killed.

Unless you can point me to where you've ever logically argued, rather than asserted, that every newborn orc fits the definition of "Chaotic Evil" you linked...

...bearing in mind that, again, by the Monster Manual, less than 50% of orcs are Chaotic Evil...

And by the way, I have never, ever done this:
No no no, of course you haven't. You never declared that every orc is born evil in D&D. You never pointed to a strip with hobgoblins shooting at the Order and said it was an example of evidence that every goblin is evil and can never be anything else. You never equated failure to treat "being an orc" as synonymous with "being a walking target" with a lame "GM" who throws morality tests and nothing else at the PCs until, one way or another, they're ruined. I must have gotten you confused with someone else.

Anyone who wants to read up the thread for some of your previous declarations can do so. They speak extremely clearly for themselves.

Gullara

2009-09-29, 02:30 PM

I don't know if this has been said cause I don't have time to read through 8 pages of posts but the combination of his actions varying from good to evil acts would classify him as neutral. Its kind of like when Roy was in the afterlife and he almost got judged as neutral due to some chaotic acts.

Porthos

2009-09-29, 02:47 PM

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-29, 03:05 PM

You did. It's a great pity you're not actually using those definitions. The definition (singular) your assertions consistently support goes:
Evil: Born of a race which can't be played and exists to be killed.This is pretty much what the evil humanoids are for, in D&D. Despite your dislike of this fact, and despite that fact that I personally find that the D&D alignment system has enough holes to make a nice kitchen strainer out of, this is the way of it. You can refuse to accept the implications of the the flaws in the system if you like, but they are what they are.

Unless you can point me to where you've ever logically argued, rather than asserted, that every newborn orc fits the definition of "Chaotic Evil" you linked...There is no need for me to do so. If the orc is evil, that is all that needs to be considered. If it is not evil, than we have a different situation, right?

No no no, of course you haven't. You never declared that every orc is born evil in D&D. You never pointed to a strip with hobgoblins shooting at the Order and said it was an example of evidence that every goblin is evil and can never be anything else.You're right, I have not. But your passive aggressive behavior if it continues will see me report your violation of the forum rules.

Would you care to answer the question rather than engaging in a series of false assertions intended to insult me, misrepresent my positions, and paint me in the poorest light possible?

Posed now for the fourth time (once using the dictionary definition, and now thrice using the D&D definition of the evil alignments):

What part of the D&D definition of the evil alignments even suggests to you that a being who has an evil alignment can possibly be an innocent?

Aldrakan

2009-09-29, 04:15 PM

Unless you can point me to where you've ever logically argued, rather than asserted, that every newborn orc fits the definition of "Chaotic Evil" you linked...

...bearing in mind that, again, by the Monster Manual, less than 50% of orcs are Chaotic Evil...

I like how you quoted almost everything except the second part of the above statement. The point is that we do have a different situation than the one you are taking as written.

Also regarding the "I've never said" bit well,

"Orc babies are evil, which we can measure them to be, and thus they have some or all of the qualities above." (Qualities in the dictionary definition of evil)

So yes. Yes you have, unless you'd like to clarify how that statement doesn't mean "orcs are born evil". Maybe they learn to be evil before they learn to walk.

How exactly do you "measure" the evil of an infant btw?

Mystic Muse

2009-09-29, 04:16 PM

\

How exactly do you "measure" the evil of an infant btw?

you can't because Infants do not have an understanding of good or evil. Until they do they are neutral.

Kish

2009-09-29, 04:17 PM

This is pretty much what the evil humanoids are for, in D&D.

And if you assert that enough times, it will become true despite its many contradictions in D&D materials and OotS materials, I'm sure.

You're right, I have not.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6953729

But your passive aggressive behavior if it continues will see me report your violation of the forum rules.

If you believe I've violated the forum rules, by all means, report it. Nothing I've said has been about you rather than about what you've said. If the moderators judge that I'm flaming, they'll tell me. In the meantime, I see no reason to let you deny that you've said what you've said, frame the debate, and/or demand I justify strawmen of your creation (see below).

What part of the D&D definition of the evil alignments even suggests to you that a being who has an evil alignment can possibly be an innocent?
No, I don't care to answer that question, because it's irrelevant. My (and the D&D books') answer to, "How can an orcish infant be innocent?" would not involve the infant being both evil and innocent; it would involve the infant not being evil. I said that you weren't using the D&D definitions of good and evil. I said that the definition of evil you were using went, "Born of a race which can't be played and exists to be killed." You did not disagree with that assertion, you merely attempted to claim it's also the official D&D definition despite not being the one you'd cited recently. So, as I said, the definition you cited from the Player's Handbook is not the one you're using to debate here. You can't argue based on, "This is my definition of evil, this is a definition of evil from a D&D book, now prove that a creature which falls within the D&D definition of evil can be both evil and innocent, or concede that every creature that fits my definition of evil is not innocent"--well, manifestly you can, but it doesn't work.

And I believe I'm done. Your position hasn't shifted in years, I'm plenty crazy but not quite crazy enough to think I might shift it.

hamishspence

2009-09-29, 04:22 PM

A being can be evil without being deserving of death- all they have to do is commit a lot of minor evil acts, and have a mild evil outlook, which could be characterized by a desire to cause physical or emotional pain.

Under this definition, a lot of people could be Evil, without "deserving to die."

If PHB is interpreted literally about humans "not tending toward any alignment, including Neutral" then 1/3 of the human population would be Evil.

If the proportion of orcs that are evil includes a large amount of "only mildly evil" orcs, then the proposition that "if the orc detects as evil you can kill it without being deemed morally a murderer" fails.

Interestingly, MMIV, which goes into Orcs in more depth, says the most common alignment after CE, is CN.

Not NE or LE.

Can a child (orc or human) detect as evil? tricky.

in OoTS, the deva states "we don't generally consider childhood escapades" yet a small child is let into Celestia (Eric).

This would suggest, that positive behaviour and attitudes by children, even small children, automatically counts.

But negative "evil" behaviour doesn't- it is not a black mark on the record, as a general rule.

Obvious example of how somebody can be both evil and innocent- if they are charged with a death penalty crime, and haven't committed it, but have done evil acts, nothing to deserve death as a punishment though.

Larkspur

2009-09-29, 04:40 PM

Posed now for the fourth time (once using the dictionary definition, and now thrice using the D&D definition of the evil alignments):

What part of the D&D definition of the evil alignments even suggests to you that a being who has an evil alignment can possibly be an innocent?

The species description "Always ___ Evil," as applied to things that are newly born rather than arising from the transformation of other species of sentient beings.

Chromatic dragons are Always ___ Evil. This means that no matter how old a chromatic dragon is or what it has or hasn't done, there's a 99 % chance it's Evil. If you walk up to a nest of dragons as they are hatching and Detect Evil on those suckers, they're all going to ping "Evil!"

By any remotely normal definition of innocence, everyone starts out innocent and must commit some immoral act to forfeit their innocence. Yet these newborn dragons, despite having performed zero acts of any moral caliber, are Evil by definition.

In D&D an Evil alignment cannot require the loss of innocence- the existence of the Always ___ Evil designations prohibits it, or indeed any definition of Evil based on solely on acts. Q.E.D.

ETA: The whole "childhood evil doesn't count" thing must be really awkward for goblinoid children who die in pogroms young. They won't be able to rejoin their adult relatives in the afterlife or find many adults of their own species at all, and it's hard to see the neutral humans wanting them around.

hamishspence

2009-09-29, 04:46 PM

Larkspur

2009-09-29, 04:53 PM

and "they've been committing murder in the womb" cannot apply to them the way it does to Drow in one Dragon magazine article- eggs don't contain more than one embryo, and Draconomicon confirms this.

The Dragon article on drow, made drow infants a lot like some species of shark- the mother produces multiple eggs, which are fertilized, and fight each other to the death in the womb until only one or two remain. (Two in the case of sharks because they have two oviducts).

And even suppose you were like a hyena or a shark and attacked your siblings in utero- it's absurd to call that an evil act. I mean, you're a frickin' embryo. How can you possibly be expected to have any moral sense? All infants are psychopaths; that's the whole point of the socialization process, to turn all the little Belkars into normal people.

And in OotS the "murder in the womb" argument is invalidated by the deva's policy on childhood misdeeds.

Plus Drow are "Always Misunderstood Emo" nowadays, so I dunno how relevant they are anyway.

Porthos

2009-09-29, 04:54 PM

hamishspence

2009-09-29, 04:56 PM

true- Dragon tends to take a harder like than most published books. the published drow sourcebook (Drow of the Underdark) dropped that line entirely.

It shows that some writers of D&D material will come up with the strangest excuses for adventurers to justify killing infant evil creatures.

EDIT:

And yet in DnD they are sent to the same afterlife (and are presumably given the same fate as) as the worst scum imaginable.

Which can be a bit tricky, to use your word, if one examines it too closely. :smallwink:

BTW: I agree entirely with your first point. And, indeed have used it in this very thread. But I was just struck by the fact that both a murderer and a person who habitually swindles his employers both get could turned into Hag Chow when they die. Or at the very least go somewhere very unpleasant.

Thats is unfortunate for the evil being. Yes, it's unfair, but D&D afterlives are often like that.

However, its not that far out from the way a lot of fictional "afterlives" have been written, with getting to hell being very easy, and not going there being somewhat difficult.

Some authors dumped hell entirely, and redefined it as "purgatory by another name"- its still exactly like most people think of it, but there is always a chance to get out.

Not in D&D though.

TV Tropes in entry on Always Chaotic Evil raised the point about Evil not being deserving of death automatically, quite well.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil

Specifically:

The Eberron campaign setting for D&D 3.5 has gone so far as to explicitly discourage the use of the alignment section of a monster's stats, even for those who are "tied" to a certain alignment. This troper has had great fun backstabbing a good-aligned party with a silver dragon Magnificent Bastard Big Bad. The core book also makes clear that "evil" does not equal "kill on sight" — the tavern owner overcharges for draft and cheats on his wife; are you gonna put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompantsington XIII?

BillyJimBoBob

2009-10-02, 10:42 AM

I think I'll just go ahead and claim the moral victory here. You can't answer the core question, you would rather claim that it is somehow "irrelevant." You simply fail. You can dislike my positions all day long, and I could concede every point on which we differ, and still you would fail to be able to describe how an evil being can be an innocent. Your only way to wiggle out of the topic is to change it, i.e. "it would involve the infant not being evil." Epic, epic failure. The infant is evil, or the situation is different. I don't care about the discussion at all if the infant isn't evil, so you can have that topic and run with it all day long and you won't see a word of dissent from me.

The point is, the evil infant, the evil fuzzy bunny, the evil cute little girl, the evil <pick your cute descriptor of choice which evokes innocence in the minds of the reader>, is, in a world where evil is a measurable attribute, evil. With all the implications that being evil brings to the table.

And changing the subject doesn't win you any arguments.

No, I don't care to answer that question, because it's irrelevant. My (and the D&D books') answer to, "How can an orcish infant be innocent?" would not involve the infant being both evil and innocent; it would involve the infant not being evil.You are quite mistaken. The D&D books do not state orcish infants as not being evil. They do not distinguish orcs by age anywhere. If orcs are evil in D&D, then orc babies are evil in D&D. You are of course free to house rule any kind of "innocence clause", selecting the arbitrary age of your choice at which the fuzzy bunny or the orc child is too cute to be evil. But don't be deluded: It is the arbitrary age of your choice and it will have little to do with anyone else and nothing to do with the rules of the game.

hamishspence

2009-10-02, 11:13 AM

One D&D book (Fiendish Codex 2) explicitly states the afterlife destination is based on acts committed at the age of majority- that before then, a being is not a moral agent.

BoED explicitly refers to orc children as "noncombatants" and also explains that evil orcs can be innocent in the sense of "doing no harm" and that launching a war on them "just for being evil" is an evil act.

Champions of Ruin lists "Natural Born Evil" and "Inherently evil" separately- with the first being orcs, goblins, drow, etc, and the second being fiends.

"The character is from a society where evil is the rule and knows know other was of life. He was brought up on a battlefield or in an orc den, learned to deceive almost before he learned to walk, and probably committed his first truly vile act before he ws ten years old."

Ten years. Not one or two. An orc baby or infant can be assumed not to have committed any "truly vile acts" and even if they are learning to deceive, etc, they are still innocents in a legal and moral sense.

Lamech

2009-10-02, 11:52 AM

I think I'll just go ahead and claim the moral victory here. You can't answer the core question, you would rather claim that it is somehow "irrelevant." You simply fail. You can dislike my positions all day long, and I could concede every point on which we differ, and still you would fail to be able to describe how an evil being can be an innocent. Your only way to wiggle out of the topic is to change it, i.e. "it would involve the infant not being evil." Epic, epic failure. The infant is evil, or the situation is different. I don't care about the discussion at all if the infant isn't evil, so you can have that topic and run with it all day long and you won't see a word of dissent from me. How could something be evil and innocent. Okay, lets use the defenition of innocence that involves sinning/some moral crime to lose innocence. (You know the first one that is most common and makes the most sense.)

Now the counter example to your position: Bob the epic paladin who has never done an evil act in his life goes to stop the evil mid-level wizard Susan. One limited wish later Bob is now geased and must obey Susan's every wish. She has him put on a helm of oppisite alignment and fail his will save. Now Bob is the epic level ex-paladin. And evil. And he still hasn't commited any moral crime, so he is still innocent.

What do you know that was easy wasn't it? Which isn't at all surprising because evil and innocence are differant things.

And yet in DnD they are sent to the same afterlife (and are presumably given the same fate as) as the worst scum imaginable.

Which can be a bit tricky, to use your word, if one examines it too closely.Not at all. The alignments attract like alignments. There is no judge in DnD deciding where you go. If say hell found away to draw more power out of making there afterlives the best thing possible, hell would become the best afterlife, but still only bad people would go there. If the upper realms goodness caused extreme pain to any soul who wasn't utterly pure good, good souls would still go there. Also note that the gods are capable of overriding this natural attraction and taking their worshippers of any alignment to their realm.

In forgotten realms people who don't worship the "gods" are sent to the wall of the faithless. (And I think the "gods" endorse this.) Any justice in the DnD afterlife is an accident.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-10-02, 12:42 PM

One D&D book (Fiendish Codex 2) explicitly states [...]
BoED explicitly refers [...]
Champions of Ruin lists [...]Great points, but these are all non-core books with many, many points of self-contradiction and cross-contradiction within themselves and with core. So which is right? I've got an OGL source which states things completely contradictory to everything you've quoted above. Which should be given the status as sole arbiter of all things alignment? Shall we measure the errors in each source, and try to derive some kind of weighted scale for credence? Does an outright error count more against a source than a simple contradiction with another source?

"The character is from a society where evil is the rule and knows know other was of life. He was brought up on a battlefield or in an orc den, learned to deceive almost before he learned to walk, and probably committed his first truly vile act before he ws ten years old."

Ten years. Not one or two. An orc baby or infant can be assumed not to have committed any "truly vile acts" and even if they are learning to deceive, etc, they are still innocents in a legal and moral sense.You've taken a quotation with a very subjective word, "probably", and have applied it as if it was a concrete fact, "Ten years. Not one or two." Even the author of that splat book left the question open, "probably before ten years old", which even assuming that the "probably" comes to pass means that at the oldest the orc is nine years old, and yet for you it is seen as an absolute value of ten years somehow. And then you compound that error by dragging in real world values for legal and moral status.

That is sloppy thinking. It is "probably before ten years old", and that leaves open "possibly before fifteen years old", and "possibly before eight years old", doesn't it? It does. And since it is so open, it also leaves open the "one or two" years old you claim is not possible, and also leaves open "at birth", and "6 months old." You can take "probably before ten years old" as a hard fact if you like, but even the author you cite isn't willing to do so, so why should your misinterpretation of his words have any value in a discussion of rules?

The state which is important is the alignment, nothing else need apply. No consideration of cuteness, or age, or fuzziness, or presumed harmlessness. Is the fuzzy bunny evil? Is the orc baby evil? There is a simple test, many simple tests in fact. Detect Evil is but one readily available test. And if the fuzzy bunny is evil then my question stands:

What part of the following core rules definitions of the three evil alignments even suggests that a being with such an alignment can be considered to be an innocent:
Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.I'm willing to consider any of the above in a conversation discussing how evils might be seen as being innocents.

Aldrakan

2009-10-02, 01:23 PM

Larkspur

2009-10-02, 01:29 PM

His problem is less the existence/non-existence of orc babies than the fact that chromatic dragon babies demolish his core argument by their very existence.

But also what you said.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-10-02, 01:53 PM

Your "core question" is dependent on your unsupported premise that orc babies are evil.Unsupported, you say?
Alignment: Often chaotic evilNarry a word about age, gender, or perceived level of cuteness. Orcs are often evil, which makes orc babies often evil. And again, I could care less about the exceptions to this rule. I seem to have to keep repeating this in an attempt to keep you lot on topic. The orc baby that isn't evil can be cherished at your bosoms for all I care. The discussion at hand is how an evil cute and fuzzy bunny or an evil orc baby can be perceived to be an innocent. By the rules of the game, of course, not your personal house rules that no one else cares about.

Point out something that invalidates my premise and I'll consider it for whatever value it might have. The rules I read support my premise, you have only a fervent desire that cuteness or youth should equal innocent.

hamishspence

2009-10-02, 02:02 PM

an obvious point is its a bit difficult for an infant who has not yet learned to crawl to commit a "truly vile act"

"less than ten years old" may be a guideline, but there is no cause whatsoever to slide it back to 6 months old and even "at birth"

Orcs are often evil, which makes orc babies often evil.

MM: "Alignment"

Always: the creature is born with the alignment
Often: "The creature tends toward that alignment, by nature or by nurture. Exceptions are common.

By implication, the creature being born with the alignment only applies to Always X.

Larkspur

2009-10-02, 02:03 PM

Boci

2009-10-02, 02:11 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with cuteness, and everything to do with the fact that they have not physically had time to do anything yet, and therefore cannot be guilty of anything.

Imagine a race that from birth has but one disire: to kill? Then wouldn't such newborns be evil, even though they have done nothing.

Larkspur

2009-10-02, 02:14 PM

Imagine a race that from birth has but one disire: to kill? Then wouldn't such newborns be evil, even though they have done nothing.

Very possibly. That's the whole point of this argument- innocence and good are related but not identical concepts. Something can be innocent and still evil, as in your example.

And the source books say it's not okay to go around killing such things, because your license to kill is based on non-innocence, not Evil.

Kish

2009-10-02, 02:17 PM

Imagine a race that from birth has but one disire: to kill? Then wouldn't such newborns be evil, even though they have done nothing.
My theoretical answer would be no, in the complete absence of choice, the race could be neither good nor evil. Similarly, a race which only wanted to help people--and had no possible alternative--could not be good or evil. Of course, in such a case there would be no reason to feel guilty about killing such creatures, any more than we feel guilty about killing virii--less actually, as virii seem to have the single desire "to live," not "to kill." However.

I'm having a great deal of trouble completing the request in your first sentence, that I imagine this desire-only-to-kill race. How do they reproduce? How do they survive long enough to do anything, good or bad? As a thought exercise alone, this is close to impossible.

Aldrakan

2009-10-02, 02:23 PM

Unsupported, you say?Narry a word about age, gender, or perceived level of cuteness. Orcs are often evil, which makes orc babies often evil. And again, I could care less about the exceptions to this rule. I seem to have to keep repeating this in an attempt to keep you lot on topic. The orc baby that isn't evil can be cherished at your bosoms for all I care. The discussion at hand is how an evil cute and fuzzy bunny or an evil orc baby can be perceived to be an innocent. By the rules of the game, of course, not your personal house rules that no one else cares about.

I see. So your contention is that a random selection of orc babies are picked and told "you're evil" at birth by the forces of the D&D world with no input from upbringing or experience, while other orc babies aren't? Are you aware that that makes no sense? Oh and also Often is less than 50%, so that's a pretty damn high acceptable loss rate.

Regarding the "no mention of age" point, exactly how many creatures do have any mention age changing their alignment in their creature entry? Do humans, elves, dwarves, anything really? Even though they are clearly capable of having their alignment determined by upbringing and experience. You're taking silence as support for your point despite the fact that the same reasoning creates massive inconsistencies with how other races are presented.

Additionally, one of the given explanations for non-evil monstrous characters is that they were saved by good NPCs and another is that they were raised by good NPCs, which flies in the face of your apparent predestination position.

Can you present any evidence that the evil of orcs is inherent rather than a result of upbringing and culture? Because if you can't prove that there's no reason to believe orc babies are evil beyond your house rule.

Edit: hamishpence's post confirms that the definition of Often explicitly mentions "Nurture". So yeah, the claim of Evil orc babies is definitely your own house rule.

Boci

2009-10-02, 02:25 PM

My theoretical answer would be no, in the complete absence of choice, the race could be neither good nor evil. Similarly, a race which only wanted to help people--and had no possible alternative--could not be good or evil. Of course, in such a case there would be no reason to feel guilty about killing such creatures, any more than we feel guilty about killing virii--less actually, as virii seem to have the single desire "to live," not "to kill." However.

Is it possibly your limited by apply humans birth levels to all races newborns? If they have a higher inteligence when they are born, like an unholy scion, then why shouldn't they be classified as evil? I fully accept that no race born with a brain on level with that of a human new born can be evil from birth.

I'm having a great deal of trouble completing the request in your first sentence, that I imagine this desire-only-to-kill race. How do they reproduce? How do they survive long enough to do anything, good or bad? As a thought exercise alone, this is close to impossible.

If they collectivly exist as a whole race to kill then they would not kill each other. Plus if they are inteligent they would know that by reproducing they are ensuring more deaths in the long run.

Kish

2009-10-02, 02:43 PM

If they collectivly exist as a whole race to kill then they would not kill each other. Plus if they are inteligent they would know that by reproducing they are ensuring more deaths in the long run.
See, you've added more desires than "to kill" already. "More deaths in the long run." Are these instinctive killers, or cunning nihilists? And these creatures, who are intelligent enough to plan for the long run, nevertheless do nothing but contemplate the glorious obliteration of all life in the universe, every second of every minute of every hour of every day, every single member of the species with no variation? Why?

There may be such a race in some obscure D&D supplement somewhere, I don't know. But I'm real unclear on what point you're trying to make here.

Boci

2009-10-02, 03:23 PM

See, you've added more desires than "to kill" already. "More deaths in the long run." Are these instinctive killers, or cunning nihilists? And these creatures, who are intelligent enough to plan for the long run, nevertheless do nothing but contemplate the glorious obliteration of all life in the universe, every second of every minute of every hour of every day, every single member of the species with no variation? Why?

There was a race in BoVD that was like that. Mechanically a slightly nerfed replicate of the human race with some seriously evil fluff.

There may be such a race in some obscure D&D supplement somewhere, I don't know. But I'm real unclear on what point you're trying to make here.

The point is "Is it possible to consider a creature evil from the moment it is born?" (Or in the case of an unholy scion, before they are even born)

BillyJimBoBob

2009-10-02, 03:43 PM

BillyJimBoBob, do you have some hitherto-unknown-to-the-English-language definition of innocent that is not based on actions? Because if you don't, I don't see how you can argue a newborn is not innocent.

It has absolutely nothing to do with cuteness, and everything to do with the fact that they have not physically had time to do anything yet, and therefore cannot be guilty of anything.You are again drawing a false analogy between the real world and the D&D world. The definition of innocence in real life was made without evil being measurable. There are no rules for this in life. Evil in D&D is objective, innocence is subjective. Don't start from the matter of opinion and try to work your way back to the matter of fact, start from the matter of fact and see if an opinion can even be considered to be valid given that fact. Do not start from the word innocent and try to work your way back to evil. Instead, start at evil and it becomes quite clear that there is no simply no way to work your way back to innocent.

In D&D, being evil is enough to make it impossible for you to be innocent. Legalese notwithstanding, nor any other argument about "they have not physically had time to do anything yet." If they are evil, ipso facto they are not innocent. The two states are mutually exclusive.

This also means that when Bob the epic paladin who has never done an evil act in his life becomes evil he loses any claim to innocence. Regardless of any real world legalese about not having done anything evil ("yet" is implied but the time line has no weight in the argument). In D&D if you are evil you have the attributes I posted above for the alignments. If you didn't have those attributes, you would not be evil, regardless of your headgear. The simple fact of being evil in a D&D world makes it impossible to claim innocence.

Counter-intuitive to our world, actually incorrect in our world, but a fact of life in D&D due to the artifacts created by the rules.

hamishspence

2009-10-02, 03:50 PM

Those alignment guidelines are just that- guidelines only. A character does not have to have all, or even most, of them to fall within the alignment.

As mentioned before, a person can be evil through committing small evil acts and having an unpleasant personality. Yet if they have not committed any offense that they can be punished for, killing them is murder.

A newborn dragon is evil through having an unusually unpleasant personality.

A newborn orc is quite possibly not evil at all, since nurture plays a significant part in the alignment of Often Evil creatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent

Note that it states that a person below the age of reason is innocent regardless of their behaviour.

Assuming a young orc is anything like a young human (a reasonable assumption based on the D&D novels) then they can be, in this sense, innocent, even if they spend much of their time beating up other young orcs.

The victim of the helm has had his personality modified, but after he has been helmed, and before he starts doing evil acts, he is by any standard, an innocent victim whose alignment was magically forced on him. A person can only be deserving of any form of punishment if they have committed crimes, a bad personality is not enough.

It might be enough to justify action against him to protect others- again, by BoED, what someone might do is not Just Cause for harming them, only what they have done.

Great points, but these are all non-core books with many, many points of self-contradiction and cross-contradiction within themselves and with core. So which is right? I've got an OGL source which states things completely contradictory to everything you've quoted above. Which should be given the status as sole arbiter of all things alignment?

Which are the contradictions within themselves?

Published WOTC books override third party.
More detailed books, as a general rule, are considered to override the PHB for national games like Living Greyhawk- which refers to the BoVD as "the authorative source on evil deeds" even if it is not a player resource:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20070109a

Add in the fact that the BoED is a player resource, and we have an answer- that when playing great big international group games, if the BoVD says an act is evil, its evil, and when the BoED says an act is evil, it probably is evil too.